Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So.. socialism, but worse.
This is the particularly unpopular part: Capitalism is not completely without virtue.
For example, capitalism will find the most efficient means of production.
The "happiest" nations in the world are capitalist with sococialised health and education.
That is untrue. Capitalism will find the most profitable means of production. Profit is all that matters. Capitalism will happily abandon efficiency, safety, environmental protection, and happiness in general, all in the pursuit of more profit.
If you don’t believe me, truly ask yourself whether you think Comcast is the most efficient ISP possible.
Sure but efficiency is synonymous with profitability in a competitive market.
Commence downvotes dweebs.
Efficiency is a functionally meaningless term under capitalism. Efficiency of what? Efficiency of email and phone spam? Widespread advertisement campaigns? Efficiency in sabotaging your competitors or collaborating to fix prices? Efficiency in redesigning products to manipulate your consumers and planned obsolescence? Efficiency in environmental destruction? Efficiency in finding loopholes in the legal system and regulations? In lobbying the government to receive special treatment? There are many ways to compete in a competitive market.
Society needs direction. Production when necessary, at the level that it is needed, keeping in mind ecological constraints. Capitalism is incapable of that.
Oh wow, I better not downvote because I don't want to be a dweeb!
This is some really naive shit
And that just so happens to be the human beings that do all the fucking work
IMO, the problem with Capitalism is that it inherited the structural baggage of previous economic systems, which themselves were transitional forms of what came before them. It is all a collection of improvised bandaids from the beginning of civilization to now.
If we are to have an economic superior to the 'isms we had before, we would have to deliberately engineer it from a clean-sheet design. No prior institutions, no previous currencies, and so forth. Game theory, questions of what we actually want from the system, and so forth would all have to be considered.
It would suck installing a wholly novel economic engine into society, because it will have major teething issues...but it is clear that what we got now, cannot let most people survive nor thrive through the troubles to come.
To port over a semantic argument from elsewhere on Lemmy:
You know the phrase "own the means of production?" A phrase I've been taught to associate with communism is "the workers shall own the means of production."
Well, 'the workers' means 'the people', and 'the people' means 'the public', and anything owned by 'the public' is actually owned by 'the government' and 'the government' is controlled by 'the elites.' Which is why any communist nation falls immediately to despotism, the instant you actually form your communist government the elites are in 100% control.
I've argued with someone on here before on the difference between a free market economy and capitalism. I was taught in a free market economy, private individuals own the means of production. An individual has his tools, he works, and trades goods or services to others at prices set by the laws of supply and demand. Under capitalism, capitalists own the means of production, a capitalist is a wealthy individual who invests that wealth - or capital - in ventures with an aim to make a profit. The boss owns the tools and pays workers a wage. The American system has sloshed around between those two extremes since the industrial revolution, periods like the early 20th century trusts and robber barons and...now, where large corporations headed by a very few very wealthy individuals own basically everything, and periods like the 50's and 90's when smaller startups in exciting new fields were springing up. The former are the closest we come to the elites owning the means of production, and it tends to be a terrible time to be alive for the average citizen, the latter are the closest I think humanity has come to "the people" meaning individuals at large actually owning the means of production.
Neither system "lifted millions out of poverty." Neither capitalism or communism has the means or motive to do that. Industrialization did that. Turns out, improving the reliability and quality of food, water, tools and medicine increases the population's standard of living.
Ah, ok. So socialism isn’t socialism because you’ve defined it out of existence. Got it. But capitalism is socialism, since you defined it that way. Well cool, if capitalism is socialism, call me a capitalist. It’s not though. There’s a reason capitalism devolves into fascism. Seize the means of production.
"communism" devolves faster, is basically my thesis statement. I say, as an owner of a lot of power tools.
Yeah, you’re definitely right about that. I’ve never advocated communism, specifically for that reason.
So don’t have a government either.
Has there ever been a country without a government that did well in the long run?
I'm pretty sure that's an awful idea.