Hi all,

I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

  • donuts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Capitalism has given a lot of people out there a raw deal: low wages, increasing gap between the rich and the poor, home ownership is out of reach to many, healthcare is unaffordable to many, having a family is prohibitively expensive, we own almost nothing and rent almost everything, even basic necessities like food, water and clothing are painfully expensive. What’s more, when you look at the systems in place today, it appears that these aren’t bugs, but features.

    I’m a socialist because I believe that society ought to use its collective power and money to guarantee all of its people a minimum of the basic, essential things that they need to live, by subsidizing food, water, shelter, clothing, heat, electricity, data, education and healthcare.

    Outside of those crucial things, capitalism is just fine, as long as people are being paid fairly for their time. And, as we’ve all seen, capitalism needs strict rules and guard rails to make sure that workers aren’t being constantly exploited. If capitalism was working well for everyone, we were all getting paid fairly for our time, and people could take care of their needs (not to mention their wants), then nobody would have any reason to care or complain about capitalism. But sadly, as it is today, capitalism is just not working for a lot of people, and many people out there are not even having their basic needs met (even despite getting an education, taking out loans, getting a job, getting a second job, working hard, etc.).

    To me, creating a prosperous and happy society is much more complex than picking capitalism or socialism, and some mix of both is probably the best of both worlds.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is actually not much separating capitalism and socialism other than workers being in control of the means of production.

      Socialism doesn’t have anything against markets. Socialism doesn’t have anything against organizational structures. What it does have issue with is workers not having any democratic say in how their workplaces operate and who they choose to do business with.

      That’s the thing, not a lot would have to change, other than putting legal protections and norms in place for workplace elections and so on.

      • steltek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        not a lot would have to change, other than putting legal protections and norms in place for workplace elections and so on.

        I definitely don’t identify as a Socialist but even still, I would have added, “tax the fuck out of the rich”. Income inequality is the root evil for most people today.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If workers own the means of production, wouldn’t the rich fat cats cease to exist as they’ve functionally been replaced?

          I’m not against a fair taxation system, but the obscene wealth of CEOs is literally one of the many things that socialism addresses because you can vote on executive compensation as well as worker compensation. The people at the bottom have unique access via their voting power to prevent those at the top from achieving obscene wealth at the expense of the average worker (see: Bob Iger, who makes 400x his average employee).

          Yes, a better taxation rate is needed for the wealthy, but a lot of that wealth would get punched in the dick and be out of a job when voted out by their workers. They ain’t gonna be John Galting it and build a gleaming city on the hill because none of those rich twerps know how to do actual labor, so they would be out of work.

          Like seriously I can’t imagine someone like Elon Musk or Steve Huffman surviving a workers vote on the boss. If they can’t legally put their finger on the scale by using their wealth as a cudgel, fuck nobody would vote for these fuckers to be in charge.

          • steltek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Perhaps a I misinterpreted you when you stated “not a lot would have to change”. Those sound like some pretty extreme changes from the status quo, actually.

          • steltek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Perhaps a I misinterpreted you when you stated “not a lot would have to change”. Those sound like some pretty extreme changes from the status quo, actually.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        To me, this is obvious. Most people agree some form of democratic control is good as far as the government goes. They don’t see the logical extension that it should apply to the workplace if it’s good as well. They haven’t seen that as an option. They’re told there’s one hierarchy businesses can have and don’t question it.

        • Patariki@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I always tell people when they step out on the streets, they walk in a democracy. Yet when they step into the office, they walk into a dictatorship.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is nothing preventing anyone from starting a worker-owned collective. The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual. It’s what people choose.

        If socialism requires an arrangement other than the one they would freely choose, then socialism requires a non-free market where people are forced into economic arrangements they wouldn’t freely choose.

        So socialist may not in principle have anything against markets, but the fact that the implementation of socialism requires curtailing markets means it does have something against markets in practice.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual.

          It’s actually that most people simply don’t have the capital to do so while entrenched capitalist interests do. But I guess maybe you’re conveniently ignoring that wildly imbalanced scale to be able to say it’s consenual. Most people are only born with their labor to sell while the capitalist class hands off their wealth to their progeny, who can live without labor, and thus do things like start a business without fear of failure. More than half of new businesses fail within 10 years. For someone without oodles of capital to fall back on, that kind of failure can be financially devastating, which makes them less likely to choose to run their own business, because the risk is far higher.

          Like, it’s generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn’t have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it’s absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

          Nice try, tho.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like, it’s generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn’t have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it’s absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

            That’s a bad example. As far as I know, Clinton is not of the “do me or you’re fired” persuasion, nor did Lewinsky ever say anything to that effect in the multiple decades since.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Monica Lewinsky in 2018:

              https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

              Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

              Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

              But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

              “This” (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore. And for that I am grateful.

              I—we—owe a huge debt of gratitude to the #MeToo and Time’s Up heroines. They are speaking volumes against the pernicious conspiracies of silence that have long protected powerful men when it comes to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and abuse of power.


              It’s not about whether or not he’s a “do me or you’re fired” type. To quote Dennis Reynolds, it’s about “the implication” about the mans power in the situation.

              • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, the truth of the matter is that she was young and naïve and he arguably took advantage and it’s complicated? Okay, that’s somewhat worse than I thought, but it’s still a bad example. You were talking about coercion, and that isn’t coercion. What Harvey Weinstein did is coercion.

          • steltek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s really not that hard to start a small business. There’s no grand shadowy conspiracy against your idea. If it was a superior method, it would see more widespread success. Bluntly forcing one business structure and removing freedoms when there are far less drastic tools is a big ask.

        • mamotromico@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you get a loan to start a business if you don’t have enough capital to begin with? It’s not that simple, it’s not on the interest of banks to invest on small businesses, because it’s comparable higher risk and they are profit driven.

        • MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          As someone who started and still works in a co-op, it’s because it’s hard. Banks don’t understand worker coops and won’t lend money to you without a real person to attach the risk to, which means founders have to take an enormous risk which it can be hard to compensate them for. The legal structure isn’t common so you are limited in the lawyers who can set one up for you. Others have mentioned the cost problems - I started a software dev coop so we didn’t have a large capital outlay but it did cost nearly 10k just in setup costs.

          It took a lot of work to get to where we are, with little supporting resources. In contrast, I started an LLC in half an hour and $150 registration fee to the government. So no, it not just “what people choose”.