Current Events > When will we admit to ourselves that capitalism is a shitty economic system?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Stalolin posted...

This is a very good point. But does this mean there are no examples to point to? I know embarrassingly little about Socialism. What does a fully socialist economy even look like?

I think there are some communes that have actually implemented a system that resembles socialism. Somewhat famous ones are in Latin America. But like I said there is such a strong current of state capitalism under a dictatorship is socialism now that it's hard to talk about socialism at all.

---

scar the 1 posted...

As opposed to... slavery?

Does anyone in this topic not know when the 20th century was?

---

DarkProto05 posted...

There's much more corruption these days. And there's a huge effort to keep average people at the bottom. In the last century, companies somewhat cared about you and gave you a decently priced standard of living. Today, companies milk society for everything it's got and that same standard of living costs much more.

I'm not saying today's problems didn't exist in the 20th century. But they are many times worse now.

That's only because the pool of readily available, cheap labor has increased exponentially over the years while workers have lost any bargaining power they once had.

---

Stalolin posted...

This is a very good point. But does this mean there are no examples to point to? I know embarrassingly little about Socialism. What does a fully socialist economy even look like?

Burkina Faso under Sankara was an interesting example. Also Rojava.

---

Most sensible people already understand this.

---

DarkProto05 posted...

At a much higher cost. The same standard of living today vs 30 years ago costs much more now. And these metrics of well being you speak of costs even more. And the 20th century wasn't that long ago dude.

Yes, in my geandpasday, a hamburger cost a Nickle. They also made far, far less. Its called inflation

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Growing wealth inequality, higher costs of living with stagnant wages, for starters

I see this come up a lot where people assume America is the only country basically. There are many social democracies or just other welfare state capitalist countries that have high degrees of equality and fair wages. The countries with the least inequality and highest median wages are all capitalist countries with generous welfare states. I think social democracy is clearly superior to both the shit system America has and state capitalism.

---

DarkProto05 posted...

Does anyone in this topic not know when the 20th century was?

Oh I'm sorry. As opposed to... slavery? It is still legal to use slave labor as long as the slaves are convicted for a crime. This is a problem to this day, and of course black people could be convicted for pretty much anything back when they weren't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. Or are you saying that they don't count as average people

---

ssjevot posted...

I think there are some communes that have actually implemented a system that resembles socialism. Somewhat famous ones are in Latin America. But like I said there is such a strong current of state capitalism under a dictatorship is socialism now that it's hard to talk about socialism at all.

The problem is pretty much that it's hard to figure out a way to have a true socialist economy without your country being overthrown by the forces of capital, leading to people using authoritarian governments with powerful militaries to not only deter invasion, but to deter coup attempts internally fomented by global capital. And then having an authoritarian government leads to your country being unable to fulfill your goals of being a truly socialist country because authority is against the spirit of the cause.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Growing wealth inequality, higher costs of living with stagnant wages, for starters

Wealth inequality isn't a metric of well being.
The cost of living is cheaper for most goods we buy. Although stuff like housing has increased in price beyond inflation, but that's mostly because of a government created shortage.
Wage stagnation is a myth.

ssjevot posted...

I think there are some communes that have actually implemented a system that resembles socialism. Somewhat famous ones are in Latin America. But like I said there is such a strong current of state capitalism under a dictatorship is socialism now that it's hard to talk about socialism at all.

Ahh, I see.

Alexis_Heartly posted...

Yes, in my geandpasday, a hamburger cost a Nickle. They also made far, far less. Its called inflation

Society putting no effort to match people's standard of living with inflation is wrong. And proves my point.

---

Alexis_Heartly posted...

So at what yearish do you attribute capitalism? Wall Street?

Oh, I think there was capitalism before, but it was just a matter of practice, not a formalized system. I think it started to become more what it is during late mercantilism, so on into the industrial revolution.

---

ssjevot posted...

State capitalism is a form of capitalism.

Communist countries didn't have state capitalism, they had centrally planned economies. And state capitalism is still pretty anti-market.

scar the 1 posted...

Oh I'm sorry. As opposed to... slavery? It is still legal to use slave labor as long as the slaves are convicted for a crime. This is a problem to this day, and of course black people could be convicted for pretty much anything back when they weren't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. Or are you saying that they don't count as average people

There's much more slave labor and cheap labor these days. Quit using the race card.

---

Once boomers lose their jobs or die then people will realise. Or maybe not, since the political right exists and most people vote against their self interest

---

fuming posted...

The problem is pretty much that it's hard to figure out a way to have a true socialist economy without your country being overthrown by the forces of capital, leading to people using authoritarian governments with powerful militaries to not only deter invasion, but to deter coup attempts internally fomented by global capital. And then having an authoritarian government leads to your country being unable to fulfill your goals of being a truly socialist country because authority is against the spirit of the cause.

The first part of your post is basically accepting tanky propaganda as factual. Authoritarianism was the goal from the start and remains the goal under these regimes. The idea of the benevolent dictator is preposterous. If authoritarianism is the only way to defend yourself why are many of the strongest militaries in the world under liberal democracies? And why do those authoritarian states fall anyway and never implement socialism? Why don't communes that have come close to or possibly even succeeded at implementing socialism not get overthrown when they have no military?

Tankies do not want or care about socialism, it is a means to an end, just like fascists will talk a bunch of bullshit platitudes to gain power or basically any other group that wants power. Anyone who tells you to give up your freedom for some abstract promise or platitude is clearly not looking out for your interests.

---

Rika_Furude posted...

Once boomers lose their jobs or die then people will realise. Or maybe not, since the political right exists and most people vote against their self interest

Americans don't have the political understanding and class consciousness to vote in their best interest. And most people who vote for the right do believe they are doing so.

ssjevot posted...

The first part of your post is basically accepting tanky propaganda as factual. Authoritarianism was the goal from the start and remains the goal under this regimes. The idea of the benevolent dictator is preposterous. If authoritarianism is the only way to defend yourself why are many of the strongest militaries in the world under liberal democracies? And why do those authoritarian states fall anyway and never implement socialism? Why aren't communes that have come close to or possibly even succeeded at implementing socialism not get overthrown when they have no military?

Tankies do not want or care about socialism, it is a means to an end, just like fascists will talk a bunch of bullshit platitudes to gain power or basically any other group that wants power. Anyone who tells you to give up your freedom for some abstract promise or platitude is clearly not looking out for your interests.

... those are also some good points.

Rika_Furude posted...

Once boomers lose their jobs or die then people will realise. Or maybe not, since the political right exists and most people vote against their self interest

There was a video posted on CE years ago showing the living space of the average Hong Kong worker. It was super cramped with the bed, toilet and kitchen in the same congested area. Many CE men said they could live like that and it looked "fine" to them, while living in their parents huge house. People are all talk when they've never experienced hardship.

---

fuming posted...

Americans don't have the political understanding and class consciousness to vote in their best interest. And most people who vote for the right do believe they are doing so.

I agree with you guys about the blind voting for republicans, but to be fair the democrats aren't doing much better for average people. We need a new party.

---

fuming posted...

Americans don't have the political understanding and class consciousness to vote in their best interest. And most people who vote for the right do believe they are doing so.

So do the left. The difference is is that if you halfway know what you are doing, the so called conservative loopholes in tax codes can work out in your favor really well but the otherwise gives you absolutely nothing to work with. If you care about social issues, always vote left, if you care about self interest though, always vote right. If you care about both? I dunno

ssjevot posted...

If authoritarianism is the only way to defend yourself why are many of the strongest militaries in the world under liberal democracies?

It's not the only possible way to defend yourself, but the executive of most liberal democracies has similar power to those in these countries. And they almost all have elections. Hell, in the US the president can just declare war without a vote.

And why do those authoritarian states fall anyway and never implement socialism?

Many haven't fallen, and generally these countries go by the theory that you must build your country, and slowly transition over time. It might not work but that is what marx believed you should do.

Why aren't communes that have come close to or possibly even succeeded at implementing socialism not get overthrown when they have no military?

I don't know of any commune that wasn't on a very small scale having implemented socialism and not had a military. Even Rojava has a military. And they are often in danger of being overthrown.

Anyone who tells you to give up your freedom for some abstract promise or platitude is clearly not looking out for your interests.

I don't think most people in those countries believe they have given up their freedom.

DarkProto05 posted...

I agree with you guys about the blind voting for republicans, but to be fair the democrats aren't doing much better for average people. We need a new party.

Agreed. But more important than even that, people need to organize in their workplace and join political organizations outside of the electoral realm. Large groups using leverage, whether their vote or a strike or public pressure can get even terrible politicians to cave in to demands. FDR was only the way he was with the new deal because of outside pressure to be even better than that from the left.

fuming posted...

Agreed. But more important than even that, people need to organize in their workplace and join political organizations outside of the electoral realm. Large groups using leverage, whether their vote or a strike or public pressure can get even terrible politicians to cave in to demands. FDR was only the way he was with the new deal because of outside pressure to be even better than that from the left.

Right, all good points. Too much faith is put into the fed.

---

fuming posted...

I don't know of any commune that wasn't on a very small scale having implemented socialism and not had a military. Even Rojava has a military. And they are often in danger of being overthrown.

Nothing has lasted longer than the Zapatistas and then explicitly do not have a formal military or any leaders. Their army is volunteer militias acting under consensus. They have almost certainly come the closest to implementing socialism of any organization on a large scale and if any state wanted to crush them they could easily do so.

Rojava is in an active war zone surrounded by warlords and terrorists. They aren't trying to resist the foreign capitalists coming to get them, they're resisting everything ranging from religious extremists to regional dictators.

---

fuming posted...

I don't think most people in those countries believe they have given up their freedom.

Bro when you literally can go to jail or worse for criticizing the dictator or government it is obvious you have given up your freedom.

---

At the same time, most of the sort of countries you are talking about came about during the era where the US was waging explicit war on global communism and invading and proxy war invading the countries who were communist. Look at what they did in Indonesia just for being third worldist but not even communist. It seems really unlikely cuba would have survived as a communism regime if they did not have a military or backing of the soviet union. The US is chomping at the bit to invade north korea and venezuela, and the idea that it is for humanitarian reasons or democracy is a farce. Our sanctions activity contribute to hunger in venezuela and we are letting millions starve during a pandemic without aid. Hell, north korea is still technically in a war, it's just an armistice, and we were the aggressors. If they said we are disbanding the military, do you think the US would let them be?

fuming posted...

Hell, north korea is still technically in a war, it's just an armistice, and we were the aggressors.

tankies say the wildest shit lmao

fuming posted...

At the same time, most of the sort of countries you are talking about came about during the era where the US was waging explicit war on global communism and invading and proxy war invading the countries who were communist. Look at what they did in Indonesia just for being third worldist but not even communist. It seems really unlikely cuba would have survived as a communism regime if they did not have a military or backing of the soviet union. The US is chomping at the bit to invade north korea and venezuela, and the idea that it is for humanitarian reasons or democracy is a farce. Our sanctions activity contribute to hunger in venezuela and we are letting millions starve during a pandemic without aid. Hell, north korea is still technically in a war, it's just an armistice, and we were the aggressors. If they said we are disbanding the military, do you think the US would let them be?

During the Cold War the US allied with communist nations to divide up the Soviet sphere. They even explicitly threw out their relations with Taiwan to further seperate the PRC and USSR. Now we're seeing them reverse course but that's how geopolitics goes. The PRC played the game better than the US, but at no point was communism a major factor for either (the US and China simply mutually opposed the Soviet Union). Then you have more explicitly allied nations like Yugoslavia where the US literally provided them with financial aid after World War II. Both the USSR and US also allied with countries that were theocratic, dictatorships, etc. because again geopolitics. The US also freed the Japanese Communist Party after WWII and it survives to this day as the oldest political party in Japan and one of the largest communist parties in a democratic country.

I have no love for the US and hate their foreign policy, but I have no love for other imperial powers either. Thinking the geopolitical game was as simple as capitalism versus communism though is simply wrong. That's like buying their argument World War I was a war for democracy (that was the propaganda at the time). By the time the Cold War was in full swing the USSR had given up on even trying to implement socialism.

Also North Korea literally invaded the South, you are obviously a tanky if you would post such a blatant lie as a fact.

---

I don't think I would necessarily blame leaders of socialist regimes giving in to pressures from foreign capital. But as ssjevot is saying, then they're not really socialist. Yes, any attempt at socialism will be resisted by capital. That's always been the case. Which is why international solidarity is important.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I don't think I would necessarily blame leaders of socialist regimes giving in to pressures from foreign capital. But as ssjevot is saying, then they're not really socialist. Yes, any attempt at socialism will be resisted by capital. That's always been the case. Which is why international solidarity is important.

I think the reason why libertarian socialists have come the closest to achieving socialism is because there is no power structure to abuse to then enrich yourself and fellow elites. It's a lot easier for a group of people who all hold equal power to resist selling out than for one guy or group of people largely loyal to that one guy to do so. If you provide a power structure with no checks and balances and make criticism of that power structure illegal there is no way for it not to end the way it always does.

---

ssjevot posted...

I think the reason why libertarian socialists have come the closest to achieving socialism is because there is no power structure to abuse to then enrich yourself and fellow elites. It's a lot easier for a group of people who all hold equal power to resist selling out than for one guy or group of people largely loyal to that one guy to do so. If you provide a power structure with no checks and balances and make criticism of that power structure illegal there is no way for it not to end the way it always does.

I'm curious, have you looked into that party that Yanis Varoufakis is leading in Europe? He says some interesting things and one of his talking points is about how democracies need to be local, or they won't work.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I'm curious, have you looked into that party that Yanis Varoufakis is leading in Europe? He says some interesting things and one of his talking points is about how democracies need to be local, or they won't work.

I have, I have been following the entire Greek situation for a while. I am a huge fan of localism and am somewhat hopeful because of my own situation (my city's legislature is majority Japanese Communist Party) that it would lead to seeing how different systems work and what could provide the best quality of life for workers/most people.

---

That's cool. I knew about him for a long time. Unsurprisingly, when he was finance minister the media (at least in Sweden) portrayed him as a loony guy saying crazy and provocative things. It wasn't until recently that I found out he's a Marxist, so I started checking out some of the talks he did while promoting his new book/campaigning for the EU parliament. He's pretty charismatic and has interesting thoughts.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

tankies say the wildest shit lmao

Indeed. It was North Korea that invaded South Korea and then the US responded

Blue_Dream87 posted...

You can argue capitalism started with the British East India Company and that's it, any earlier and youve been sucking hard on the propaganda

to be a smartass nerd it actually started 8 years prior to the british east india company with the Voorcompagnie
aka the Dutch East India Company @Blue_Dream87


---

Ryuko_Chan posted...

to be a smartass nerd it actually started 8 years prior to the british east india company with the Voorcompagnie
aka the Dutch East India Company @Blue_Dream87

You fucking pedant

---