Current Events > Capitalism gets brought up in every topic on this board

(+) Yeah! (+)

ToteAll posted...

No other system has come even close, in the history of humanity, to what capitalism has allowed in modern times

And it's completely restricting our ability to address the existential threat that is climate change. At this point nothing else really matters

"Socialism and communism are even worse!!!" is not really a defense of shitty capitalism.

It implies widespread misery is a necessary part of a functioning society.

hockeybub89 posted...

"Socialism and communism are even worse!!!" is not really a defense of shitty capitalism.

It implies widespread misery is a necessary part of a functioning society.

It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the differences between socialism as economic theory, and communism as a structure of governance.

Democracy and socialism are highly compatible, but it can be difficult to maintain that balance against the corrupting influence of capitalism and wealth. Also, I am not a communist and I would not want to live in a communist state - but that doesn't mean I can give capitalism a free pass. Capitalism and markets need to be regulated if only to prevent monopolies and oligopolies, but also to prevent the corrupting influence of wealth on governance.

Some people just dont understand when theyre beaten. Even if its happened multiple times in the same topic.

Posting ITT about capitalism.

I missed the post about the myth of capitalism being responsible for all modern innovation.

This is an overly simplistic piece of propaganda that discounts the forward march of technology since the enlightenment, and the freedom afforded by representative democracy... Even if it needed some improvement and not everyone was free or represented.

Capitalism just insured technology that generated profit for the privileged classes was out front and center to the exclusion of other technologies and advancements in many cases.

ToteAll posted...

But again, by all means, show me exactly where in the entire world the "exploited underclass" is for Nordic countries.

If you can buy cheap sweatshop clothes from Bangladesh in Nordic countries, then they're still exploiting a global underclass. Cheap, accessible goods always come with a price

Gwynevere posted...

If you can buy cheap sweatshop clothes from Bangladesh in Nordic countries, then they're still exploiting a global underclass. Cheap, accessible goods always come with a price

@ToteAll
Not to mention that their big fancy sovereign wealth funds that they tout come directly from oil and gas and thus emissions that will cook the third world and create a fascist government in all these Nordic countries once the refugees come knocking at their door.

In the "well regulated capitalism" you're discussing, capital still has disproportionate economic and political power and has a strong incentive due to relatively high domestic wages and rights to outsource exploitation internationally and to dismantle social democracy domestically. That already happened everywhere else, it's not a hypothetical.

Your hypothetical well regulated, non exploitative, permanent capitalism is just as fantastical as my hypothetical Monty Python anarcho syndicalist commune.

My favorite is when people whine about their shitty bosses or the fact they have to work at all as "capitalism's fault"

It's the horseshoe - your dumb far right uncle calls every social program communism, and your dumb far left cousin blames everything on capitalism

ToteAll posted...

Would their systems collapse without these clothes?

Now we're getting somewhere. Where's the numbers behind this data?

Here's one example. Norway alone has gotten over a trillion in funds directly from oil and gas activities and are still profiting from that now. That's the money that largely funded the Nordic lifestyle. Those emissions aren't concentrated in Norway though, instead, they'll affect the global south. That relationship applies to the rest of their economy as well. Norway gets to be rich and pretend to be clean, while others bear the consequences. Capitalism is full of situations like that (aka externalities, aka "you poor/brown people deal with this")

https://www.vox.com/22256192/norway-oil-gas-investments-fossil-fuel
https://www.vox.com/22227063/norway-oil-gas-climate-change

g980 posted...

My favorite is when people whine about their shitty bosses or the fact they have to work at all as "capitalism's fault"

It's the horseshoe - your dumb far right uncle calls every social program communism, and your dumb far left cousin blames everything on capitalism

No one gives a fuck what enlightened centrists think on anything. Unchecked capitalism was ruining my life everyday at my old job

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

the achievements of wealthy capitalist nations come at the expense of the poorer nations that they stole resources from

Singapore is one of the best country's in the world by all metrics, didn't benefit from the exploration or theft of other country's. And relies almost entirely on trade to sustain itself with none of the old baggage others have benefited from like slavery, war or colonialism.

So no, capiltisim needed none of those things to succeed. And would have outperformed the others regardless.

legendary_zell posted...

All of the Asian Tigers other than China were handpicked for success as a policy to destroy leftist potential in those countries. And none of them succeeded through the neoliberal capitalism of today. They all had heavy state direction of the economy, protectionist policies, authoritarian capitalism, etc. No one is allowed to do what they did today as the US and international institutions force neoliberal capitalism on any developing country that wants money today.

The US would only have possesed this degree of influence post WW2. Beforehand capitalism still reigned Supreme and there's nothing to imply it wouldn't have still afterward.

legendary_zell posted...

They are not infinite and ever growing, though they are great. Capitalism generates ever greater demand, to the point of being unsustainable, while not meeting people's actual needs for community, rest, leisure, self determination etc. People had been content with far less than what they feel they constantly need under Capitalism for all of human history, and that's in large part because they had those other, more important things. It's possible to do both, but not under Capitalism

Those needs aren't really essentials for survival and are arguably on the individuals more so then the system like self determination.

And people not having as many wants before doesn't mean they were content then. No more then they are now. Just that their ever growing desires sparked new ideas, inventions, products, services and goods overtime that capitalism managed to meet.

legendary_zell posted...

I think you're underestimating the hell out of humanity, and that's core conservative assumption, that our nature is fixed and that it's awful. If you genuinely think humanity would rather burn for an uneven and temporary period of enhanced wealth, rather than a substantiable system of living, I don't know if we can ever aagree

I believe its fixed to a degree, but its not awful in my opinion. Greed and domination are large part to what pushed us ahead of our competition in the evolution race.

But I personally I believe humanity for the most part is kind of how the Joker described it in the dark knight. Only moral, orderly and just for however long the good times allow and last.

ToteAll posted...

Would their systems collapse without these clothes?

do Nordic countries have access to cheap, accessible goods imported from developing countries, often those with substandard working conditions? Yes or no?

g980 posted...

horseshoe

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/3/AAVkBcAAEtWn.jpg

ToteAll posted...

But where's the "exploited underclass" whose labor (because that's the argument and you know it) is being taken advantage of?

I know and agree that pollution and unchecked capitalism go hand in hand, don't get me wrong, it's one of the main reasons I believe capitalism must be held in check, but that is a very vague and lose interpetation of "exploited underclass".

I think the climate change stuff has been part of the argument from the beginning, if you look through the topic, and beyond the topic, it's one of the chief criticisms of capitalism. It's also going to be the main byproduct of the Nordic economy. It's very relevant.

But it's not hard to see the problem of an exploited underclass in Norway, or in Europe or the USA for that matter. It's the same in all these places. Migrants, minorities, the disabled, etc people performing law wage, dangerous, or exploitative labor. The upper classes get cheap food, clothing, services, and other things at these people's expense. Their suffering subsidizes our lifestyles and our sense that we're prospering. As this article explains (from a Norwegian university, not some lefty with a grievance), all of this is a result of the structure of neoliberal capitalism. Free capital, but not free people, the absence of major leftist alternatives, the profit motive for capital, and the desire of global winners to live as cheaply as possible. Exactly as I've said throughout this topic.

https://tinyurl.com/yvbhkezf

Again, by what mechanism will you control capital within Capitalism??? You wouldn't take me seriously if I said I wanted a Maoist one party state, but I promised that I'd limit the power of the government somehow. Why should I take seriously that you'll control capital while allowing capital to accumulate power?

legendary_zell posted...

I'm not sure, since it hasn't been done yet. My best guess is that it would involve some sort of international economic and military solidarity, undeniable domestic societal/economic successes, and work to reduce anti-left hysteria in capitalist states.

the soviet union literally did all this

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

the soviet union literally did all this

If they had done this stuff without the aggression they showed towards Hungary, Afghanistan etc, hadn't had the famines and deportations, maybe there'd be something there. And I'm not sure what they did to combat anti-leftist hysteria. They fucked up a lot and gave easy propaganda victories to capitalists.

You're not going to be able to convince anything more than an extreme minority of people that the Soviet Union actually overwhelmingly got it right and that we should just run that back. One of the chief missions of leftists is to explain how we differ from that and why that won't happen again.

legendary_zell posted...

If they had done this stuff without the aggression they showed towards Hungary, Afghanistan etc, hadn't had the famines and deportations, maybe there'd be something there. And I'm not sure what they did to combat anti-leftist hysteria. They fucked up a lot and gave easy propaganda victories to capitalists.

the soviet union literally did all the things that you initially stipulated. this is moving the goalposts.

You're not going to be able to convince anything more than an extreme minority of people that the Soviet Union actually overwhelmingly got it right and that we should just run that back. One of the chief missions of leftists is to explain how we differ from that and why that won't happen again.

every attempt at socialism had successes, challenges, and things we can learn from. basing your conversations on US propaganda isn't going to move things forward

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

the soviet union literally did all the things that you initially stipulated. this is moving the goalposts.

No goalposts have been moved here. If there's moderate to significant success, and extreme failures, most people wouldn't consider that a success to cite. When you increase literacy, and establish a model universal healthcare system, but also kill and imprison millions of your own people, that's not gonna get it done. If you did the latter without the former, THAT'S undeniable success.

every attempt at socialism had successes, challenges, and things we can learn from. basing your conversations on US propaganda isn't going to move things forward

Bad things that absolutely should not be repeated happened under the USSR, acknowledging them is not basing conversations on US propaganda. If you can't acknowledge and explain that, why should anyone believe you won't repeat those mistakes?

The whole name of the game is to keep the good stuff from prior socialist experiments and abandon the bad stuff. To do that, you have to actually acknowledge and have a rational explanation for why the bad stuff happened and why you are presenting something different so that it won't reoccur.

You ever notice how TC these days just makes his controversial topics and then just doesn't post?

legendary_zell posted...

No goalposts have been moved here. If there's moderate to significant success, and extreme failures, most people wouldn't consider that a success to cite. When you increase literacy, and establish a model universal healthcare system, but also kill and imprison millions of your own people, that's not gonna get it done. If you did the latter without the former, THAT'S undeniable success.

sorry, no. you did move the goalposts, and having unrealistic standards for what constitutes "undeniable success" does not change this. the fact is that the soviet union had many undeniable successes, many challenges, and many areas that we can learn from to actually move forward.

Bad things that absolutely should not be repeated happened under the USSR, acknowledging them is not basing conversations on US propaganda. If you can't acknowledge and explain that, why should anyone believe you won't repeat those mistakes?

I can acknowledge and explain them, as can many other people. but any time someone attempts to help contextualize the misleading information or debunk myths they get instantly dismissed as a "tankie."

The whole name of the game is to keep the good stuff from prior socialist experiments and abandon the bad stuff. To do that, you have to actually acknowledge and have a rational explanation for why the bad stuff happened and why you are presenting something different so that it won't reoccur.

if we reach a point where this sort of conversation ceases to be pointless hypotheticals, I will consider that to be a success

The same people saying 'there's no better option' are the same who claim that Dems and Republicans are the same.

CyricZ posted...

You ever notice how TC these days just makes his controversial topics and then just doesn't post?

No

ToteAll posted...

if the Right is socially liberal.

What does this even mean

Where is this happening, who does this description even include?

Gwynevere posted...

What does this even mean

Where is this happening, who does this description even include?

a lot of people have nonsensical/incoherent politics. to a large extent I think they're just oblivious. a lot of them say shit like "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" as though fiscal conservatism doesn't actively inhibit positive social change

ToteAll posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

why yes, the Democratic Party in the united states is a great example of what I was talking about; though I should add the caveat that when I said they were "just oblivious" I was talking about people without power to enact actual change. many politicians in the Democratic Party do have that power and actively choose not to enact actual change because corporations bribe them

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

a lot of people have nonsensical/incoherent politics. to a large extent I think they're just oblivious. a lot of them say shit like "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" as though fiscal conservatism doesn't actively inhibit positive social change

Most political ideologies are incoherent. Just natural that when there's 5 coherent ones and 590 incoherent ones, the incoherent ones keep cropping up

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Most political ideologies are incoherent. Just natural that when there's 5 coherent ones and 590 incoherent ones, the incoherent ones keep cropping up

the term "ideology" itself suggests, in my mind, a certain level of coherence that I think is largely absent from the people I'm talking about

Ideologies don't have to be coherent to be ideologies

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Ideologies don't have to be coherent to be ideologies

actually I think they do