Capitalism is still the problem. This is a aymptom of that problem
post
Ummm...except that this IS capitalism. It's just completely unregulated capitalism...which is capitalism in its truest form. If "the free market" was given complete autonomy to regulate itself...monopolies are always the inevitable outcome.
Saying capitalism isn't the problem but monopolies are is like saying a cancerous tumor isn't the problem, but the aggressive metastasis is.
"Stop saying he was killed by a gun! It was the blood loss that did him in!"
It wasn't capitalism that that said bail out large companies when they make bad investments. It wasn't capitalism that said hand out free loans to any company who asks during covid. It's not capitalism that prohibited community based ISPs.
Alright. What was it then?
Corporate socialism. In real capitalism there would be no government bailouts.
It's still a shit economic system, but it's mostly shit because shitty people worm their way to the top. Same with every instance of communism or socialism.
"that's not real capitalism" now, huh?
You call it "socialism" because it's failing, but there isn't anything socialist about it; it's just late stage capitalism. Capitalism is a system of concentrating power, and this is what happens when you concentrate power.
It wasn't capitalism in the same way that "it wasn't real communism".
Sure, I guess maybe, but it's the inevitable outcome of the processes that define capitalism. Just as all kittens become cats, this is what all capitalism becomes.
Lol, you're pointing to a time when regulation was still helping keep shit up, completely discounting the fact that we had these same issues before the regulations were in place. We had these kinds of monopolies before (Ma Bell, Standard oil, etc), there was just a handful of decades where the government was trying to keep them from going full capitalism, which they're now able to do.
Capitalism is the problem, you just don't see the problem because you've seen what it's like when governments reign in corporations. But without something keeping a boot on the neck of the corpos, this is what we get
You're complaining about accumulation of power/wealth and how it ends up being abused by the powerful/wealthy. That's one of the main features of unregulated capitalism
The key word is unregulated. Why does it have to be unregulated?
It was regulated. They captured the regulators. That's the whole point. It could never have gone any other way. Capitalism breeds greed. In everyone. And when a greedy person sees another person doing something highly immoral and abusive to their customers, they don't think, "my God! We have to stop it!"
They think, "that's a good idea. How can I get MINE?"
It was regulated. They captured the regulators. That’s the whole point.
That's a criticism of the political system, not the economic one. Government deficiencies not intrinsic to an economic system fail as criticism of the economic system.
Explain how to prevent capital from interbreeding with regulation. Tell me how a government could definitely prevent that.
Also my comment discussed the societal impacts of capitalism. The exhalation of greed has effects on the society which by it's very nature decrease interest in strong regulation. Greedy people don't like regulations even if they are never affected by them.
Explain how to prevent capital from interbreeding with regulation.
I don't need to. You're criticizing government & pinning the blame elsewhere. Integrity to identify problems accurately costs nothing & frees us from misleading confusion.
Your criticism suggests we should focus on devising political systems less susceptible to corruption & regulatory deficiencies. There are various areas of scholarship & research[^research] that try to seriously answer these questions & could lead somewhere fruitful, but they rarely come up in these dumbass online discussions.
[^research]: such as political economy & public choice
I am constantly bewildered by you people who act like these things are separate, unrelated ideas.
What do you fucking mean I'm criticizing government and not capitalism? Is regulation of the economy unrelated to the economic system? Does that economic system not impact the effectiveness of various methods of regulation? Why do you feel you can just sidestep questions and claim it's unrelated?
Welcome to logic. If you think they're the same thing, then criticizing the government should make no difference to you.
Exasperation & incredulity when your questionable assumptions are questioned isn't a valid argument. Neither is trust me, bro. No one owes you their uncritical faith. If lack of uncritical faith in your dubious assumptions bewilders you, then you should expect constant bewilderment.
What do you fucking mean I’m criticizing government and not capitalism?
An economic system can exist under different types of regulatory political systems/governments, and the policies can vary. They're clearly not the same thing.
I already pointed out scholarly fields that study their interaction & address your questions in a more serious way. If you want to keep pretending there is no distinction & lack the curiosity to pursue the more serious scholarly work on the topic, then your mind is made up, I think you're being intellectual dishonest, and I doubt you're seeking truth.
My claim is that capitalism is not only an economic system as it will eventually replace the government as well. I feel like you enjoy talking down to people who don't have a degree in the fantasy world of economics. The entire field is nonsense building off of nonsense.
Because capitalists don't like regulations? When you let corporations become the sole driver of the economy, some of them get really big, so big they can easily buy out the people who are supposed to regulate the market.
Why do you think all companies are bending the knee and ass kissing trump? Because you get what you want when you bribe him enough.
Also isn't lobbying legal in the US? It's almost like the country was made by capitalists assholes to make it easy to subvert regulations.
The US was founded by the rich for the rich. Anything else is just convenient propaganda to convince the masses otherwise.
I hear ya, just seems like one of those throwing the baby away with the bathwater things.
The likelyhood of implementing market regulations is plausible vs implementing full communism, which will never happen.
We can make progressive steps towards fixing our system and I don't want to give up.
The guy in the video is literally discussing the removal of regulations though? Are you arguegreeing right now?
Name an economic system that doesn't eventually funnel money to the top. Not one person has answered that on lemmy, but it sounds like you can!
So they all funnel money to the top.
Are you suggesting that capitalism funnels money to the top slower than other systems? Or that when capitalism does it, it's somehow less problematic?
Because what else is your point here?
Name an economic system that doesn’t eventually funnel money to the top. Not one person has answered that on lemmy, but it sounds like you can!
Other lemmings already did, but you're hellbent on saying "Nuh-uh! That doesn't count!" which, judging from your other comments, comes from not wanting to accept that an economic system isn't a magical, isolated thing that is simple to understand and always works the same everywhere, without any relation to the groups and communities within it.
"Capitalism isn't the problem, THIS is"
* points to the main thing capitalism does *
But that is the inevitable outcome of capitalism.
It's like saying "the problem isn't kittens, it's cats".
It's more like saying "the problem isn't the several aggressive madmen with loaded guns shooting at you, it's when the bullet hits you that's the problem".
Economics, as an intellectual discipline, is closer to theology than physics. Much like religion being arbitrary rules cherry picked from schizophrenic Bronze Age fan fiction, current economic models are built as narratives manufactured to justify the existence, position, and legitimacy of a ruling class. Finance is merely mythology shrouded in enough mathematic formulas to provide the appearance of a natural, universal legitimacy.
Capitalism is absolutely the problem, but I don’t consider replacing it with something else, or eliminating it to be a viable response. My biggest problem with capitalism, and all economic systems, is the lack of consent. Capitalism should be tolerated only when conducted by those who have actively chosen to be exposed to it. Let them play in an air tight bubble where they have to recycle their competitively manufactured farts.
Small local businesses fuck over their employees too. Capitalism incentives it. It also incentives monopolies. And it seems when the wealth disparity gets large enough, it captures government and starts transforming into fascism.
Every example you give is driven by capitalism.
Competition, especially free market competition is one of the enemies of capitalism.
Fortunately for capitalists in a liberalised (unregulated) market it's not too hard to build up market power somewhere in the supply chain, and squeeze out, or effectively force the competition into franchise.
Almost unavoidable economies of scale in industries like banking are huge problem, that concentrates critical market power and drives out competition under the guise of plausible investor friendly sounding shit like "risk premia", "international competitiveness", "labour cost efficiency". Directed credit, sectoral and regional should be part of being a bank, the banks have been given responsibility for running the economy, but not made accountable for it. That's why they can get away with investing in real estate bubbles instead of productive industry.
FDR was one of the last USA leaders who seemed to understand the role of banks - sadly that was a long time ago and those ideas seem to be long forgotten.
If the goal is to make a profit for private owners, you are going to get this shit eventually. Regulating the fuck out of it might make it feel better but only in comparison.
We could regulate a system where the workers own the means of production too.
But we should be making things that last forever, protect our planet, etc. Profit is antithetical to sustaining life so, advocating for that sounds insane.
So, what's your solution? I am listening.
If you want to end Capitalism, you would need to get rid of the stock market and ban financial shareholding entirely. Make investing illegal, and you would remove the primary mechanism for worker exploitation.
Everything in the post screams unfettered, unregulated capitalism as the underlying cause since it's the system that allows and promotes this behavior.
Also as a 40+ year old, I can remember that this has been the case too since I remember the wal-marts moving in and killing every local business with everyone smiling about cheap Chinese goods. Same as it ever was.
Well, unfettered China will soon take over, since they don't have the same issues.
I'm not even a China shill, I was very critical of China until.
-
I got to see reports from my boss, his son, and some YouTube videos on how they are actually advancing, and how decent their society is becoming.
-
I see how awful our countries are in general. (except Finland, Denmark, Norway, etc).
-
Realize that they are wimning regardless, there's no way we are overcoming their momentum. Say what you will about how good some country is, but this is no good! One country rulling the world is terrible, a recipe for the end times.
Op... I don't feel like I want to say the same thing as others but you realize capitalism causes monopolies .?
And as a 2nd point Ive not seen mentioned because it's slightly off topic but.
Capitalism encourages unsustainability.
By it's very nature there is no end goal but growth for the sake of growth.
This can't happen forever. You understand that right?
We live on a planet with finite resources. And a breaking point for pollution that many believe has already been met.
Capitalism WILL kill this entire planet and everyone on it.
It's not a theory or a prediction.
It's absolute. Again, by its very nature, the goals of capitalism is to cut corners to keep producing. To constantly expand. To reduce production costs constantly. (Usually in the form of labor).
Which is not sustainable.
This is why billionaires want more babies. To feed the capitalism machine.
But what we really should be doing is celebrating lower birth rates. We don't need more humans to be slaves.
We need less humans. And sustainable economies. Sustainable lifestyles.
Machines have reduced the need for human labor a hundred fold. And increased human production by quite a lot. Yet humans are still paid low wages.
Capitalism will continue to exploit human labor.
The more of us there are, the lower value we have.
You ever have a job where they make it clear how replaceable you are? I have. And there are a lot of jobs like that.
True communism is the only system that will save us. Not Russia fake communism. Not China authoritarian fake communism.
I mean legit actual real communism.
Where the workers own the companies.
Not billionaires.
Why do people believe those men deserve to hoard?
I don't get it. Just watch videos of those losers. They aren't great men. They don't deserve to hoard the wealth.
They are rich from harming others. Exploiting. Funding wars and politicians in other countries and our own that allow them to keep exploiting.
Literally. Not figuratively.
We have allowed the worst of humanity to take control.
This has to stop.
True communism or something like it, is the only sustainable system that will save humanity and the planet.
I feel like you're missing the economic system vs. the government system. Those are two separate entities that must be controlled for.
Mu point here is that capitalism is a fucking mess, with no government controls. Of course it is! As with any economic system.
Uh... Government controls the economic system by laws and enforcement of said laws.
politics and economy are not separate worlds. capital, monopoly or not, is political power greater than any vote or government seat
what sense does it make to say you'll keep the ruling class in check while letting them keep their power?
can you make a benevolent mafia by taxing the racket and breaking up mafia monopolies?
Well yeah any economic system requires government oversight to be effective but that's because there isn't really a decoupling of government and economics. Our current governments around the world are primarily representative democratic nation states and they are neoliberal capitalist institutions. These are not separate, both have evolved alongside each other and we are currently seeing them crack under pressure together. There is no point in making this distinction at the macro level.
Surprise! The system of accumulating power was used to gain power to influence the government to let them gain more power to influence the government to let them gain more power to influence the government... Ad infinitum.
Government regulation of capitalism is fundamentally impossible in the long term, unless you lock it down early into something barely recognizable as capitalism. That ship has sailed long long ago.
"capitalism is not the problem. The problem is capital and it accumulation."
Yeah. Great propaganda bro.
What are you talking about? Capitalism is a wonderful system that works perfectly fine!
...as long as there are established guardrails that hamstring nearly every facet of it. Perfection!
Tell us about your economic system that doesn't eventually funnel money to the top. To date, not a single person on lemmy has answered that question.
That's easy! A post scarcity society where everyone's basic needs are fulfilled and working is fully optional. Somehow we also solved religious and ideological differences, greed, fully renewable and unlimited energy and all the other things too.
Depends on your definition of funneling money to the top. You need a decentralized economic system designed not to behave like late stage capitalism.
One example of this is Parecon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
Honestly though, most of our problems are not driven by our economic system so much as our culture. You have to face that just about everyone worships greed whether they like to admit it or not.
In the US it is extremely pronounced and we even have idolized phrases about it like "fuck you money". Where you have enough money that you can do whatever you want and you no longer have to follow the rules.
There is obvious a problem with our culture, but it is not just the US. Fascism is pretty much everywhere and even the most progressive countries still have huge wealth gaps that are always slowly widening.
Democracies cannot exist with large wealth gaps unless the wealth is aggressively kept out of politics. This is extremely hard and that is why the majority of all policies in all governments all over the world are driven by corporations.
What id call modern democratic socialism makes use of cooperative economics. Both state run and stateless socialism (cooperatives) have already proven just, fair, equitable, sustainable, innovative ...
Humans lived in what could be described as a sort of primitive communism for most of the species history.
Basically, the society needs to be decentralized. If you can keep it sufficiently non hierarchal, there isn't a lot of power people can get over many others. A problem I see with this is defending against large, centralized, outside organizations. So, I guess you'd need some federation-like structures. Some communes are pretty democratic and decentralized. The Zapitista territories are the best example I know of, of a large non-hierarchal federation of communities.
Why does it have to be a single economic system? The answer isn’t an existing economic system because economic systems are broken from the jump. The answer is a constantly evolving system, moving toward the betterment of all, not the betterment of the few. Capitalism may have been the economic system for the Industrial Revolution/subsequent time—I think that’s up for debate, but any pro capitalist will tell you it’s great for innovation (which, nah, but sure let them have it). But after the period in which capitalism helped people progress, its time was over. We should have moved past it to keep it from getting corrupted. But we haven’t and look where we are now
That is a total non-answer, zero proposals, zero meat on the bone. So, still, no one has answered the question.
Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it wasn't given. And it's quite obvious that the only answer you're willing to accept is "capitalism is the only economic system that can allow us to not live as animals", even though that's demonstrably false, so I don't know why you want people to do your research for you other than ego and immaturity.
So your point, if I can describe it, is that the system should be amended. It’s a Ship of Theseus matter. How much can you change capitalism before it’s not capitalism?
We’re basically saying the same thing, minus any bootlicking on my part. I’m saying if you have a constantly evolving system that has different values and a different focus, capitalism should have basically been “bred” out of existence at this point. We’ve reached industrial satiation. Rapid expansion is now a cancer, not a benefit. But, like in the body, growth and change are natural. But when the individual parts start outgrowing the world, you’ve got a cancer. And that’s the stage of capitalism we are at. But, as you and I have both said, if you had amended the system as time went on, we wouldn’t have capitalism today.
There's not one as long as cluster B personality disorders exist and are allowed in positions of power.
Communism is supposed to be what you're describing, but it only works on paper.
Systems are there to solve the human problem, but there is no system that can’t be eventually over come by people and gamed.
so what do you do?
you take on the mind set that nothing is everlasting. you stretch out the good times and you nip the bad times in the bud. maximize responsible individual freedoms, minimize group power. and when the system is no longer able to resist being gamed, you tear it down, and start anew. maybe every 5 generations or so
There's a paradox I heard of that's pretty relevant in this line of thought that is pretty transportable to most things. I heard it in the context of IT security.
It goes something like this: you buy security and after 2 or 3 years when you need to renew, nothing bad has happened, so it seems like you don't need security. When in actual fact the extra security has been the reason there haven't been any incidents.
So it's almost impossible to prove that buying the security is helping without extensive analytics.
In many cases those analytics are either very difficult or impossible to get.
To demonstrate the transportable nature of this concept, let's transpose it to vaccines.
If everyone is vaccinated, then nobody gets sick from those diseases, making it seem like the diseases are not a threat anymore, which means that vaccines are no longer useful.
Meanwhile, in all actual fact, the only reason why polio is so rare is because there is a safe and effective vaccine for it that everyone has taken (replace polio with whatever disease you want that has an effective vaccine).
It's a paradox of: how do we prove this is working, without discontinuing it and possibly being eaten by rats/leopards/whatever.
If there's only monopolies in the market then is their product the best on the market, or is everyone using it because there's no alternatives?
Leaning that monopoly argument against capitalism, it's almost certainly not the best product. When you have a captive audience, those that need your service and don't have an alternative, there's no incentive to innovate, or invest in improving the product at all. Do innovation stagnates so that corporations can maximize shareholder value; because the focus of a corporation isn't to innovate, or improve what they do, their focus is always on extracting the most value for the least cost.
Therefore, monopolies will almost certainly lead to a sub-optimal product. The people that suffer for this are the users of that product. In the case of something like Google search, that's basically everyone.
There's a more modern term for this phenomenon: enshittification. Actively making a product worse specifically for the purposes of creating profits for shareholders.
Late stage capitalism is fun, isn't it?
The fundamental argument here is that it's not the system which incentivizes abusers that is the problem but rather the abusers who exploit the system. Sure, we can have another working class revolution, keep capitalism around and build institutions that keep exploitation in check but given enough time those with capital and the power that it represents will chip away at those institutions, continuing the cycle and harming people in the process.
This would happen under any system since power-hungry narcissists are everywhere, so sooner or later every society would run into these issues. My statement is not meant to defend capitalism but to rather state the question on how to prevent or diminish these kind of influences from power-hungry people, independent of the underlying economic system.
Simply create a system where it is impossible for a single person or faction to have enough power to do this kind of harm, and be constantly vigilant against any erosion of the safeguards.
It's extremely simple when said in this way, but it's also nearly impossible in practice.
Capitalism encourages narcissism. It strives on it. Corporations themselves are narcissistic entities. A system not built on individualism and greed would help.
a system that does not account for abuse will fail. but let’s not be so defeatist. society may go in cycles of rise and decline. we just have to stretch the rise and force the reset early enough to mitigate the harm. and while what comes after the next revolution may fail eventually, the good times should be fought for none the less. and be ever vigilant to remind those whom we entrust power that the leviathan sleeps as long as it’s cared for.
Uncharacteristically self-aware of you to post this in the shitpost community.
Generally agreed. Unregulated Capitalism is the real issue here, we used to have, like... within the lifetime of people we know, very regulated capitalism and a market that really worked for us, the average person was rapidly getting richer and we had real quality of life.
That said, a part of me admittedly thinks this may be inevitable though, because once capitalism is unregulated briefly, all hell breaks loose. Once any company has a monopoly and true market dominance, the only way to continue making line go up is to change the rules of the game by lobbying, and once money enters your government and corrupts its ability to regulate, the train never stops.
I suspect it keeps getting worse until things go violently wrong and the system resets. But even then, I think we as a society forget, and "try" deregulating capitalism again in a few hundred years, kicking off another cycle that ends in revolution.
Except that is true with any social or economic system. You unregulate your president, good luck getting that back under control. You unregulate your communist party/planning committee, hello Stallin my old friend.
Humans who accumulate power in any system can corrupt said system. And every system has opportunities to accumulate power.
At least in capitalism it's slower, giving people more time to react. Even now, the state of US capitalism seems easier to reverse than e.g. the dictatorship of Chinese communist party.
Exactly, actually, I'd say I agree. As much as we're clearly in a bad state, I'd say for how late we are into this cycle, we're still better off than in a dictatorship or the ways other systems unravel. I don't think any political system can be incorruptible, so long as humans are involved (as they absolutely should be), and this isn't the worst state imaginable.
As a friend often says, "democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got so far", and I think the same goes for regulated capitalism, with working anti-trust and taxation.
As a friend often says, "democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got so far", and I think the same goes for regulated capitalism, with working anti-trust and taxation.
Exactly. I agree. The most important thing is public participation, putting pressure on their leaders to keep the corruption low and well hidden. There are ways for people to hold their leaders accountable. The tragedy is when people are apathetic and don't do so. When bribes can be received in the open and people just tolerate them calling them lobbying, then there is no hope keeping the system working for the people. The leaders will not stop from the goodness of their hearts.
Yeah, I'm starting to think this is the heart of the cycle. When things are good, people stop worrying about the details and trust their governments to keep things as is, it's only when things stop working that the average person starts paying attention and advocating for themselves, and history is forgotten until it repeats itself.
this is why I subscribe to NOTHING and I buy NOTHING except for shit to literally keep me alive, or to repair things I already own.
never been more physically fit, have tons of new skills from guitar to fixing my appliances.
Thanks Chicago School of Economics you neoliberal bastards, "monopolies are efficient" my ass.
They're efficient at a couple things. None of the things are good things unfortunately.
Maybe we are focusing on the wrong places. Maybe we should be burning down schools of economics. Burn down every building that teaches it. Maybe that would help.
Chicago School generally isn't in favor of monopolies, and they opposed the to big to fail concept that is a big reason we are in this mess.
I am opposed to the inevitable outcome of my policies!
Nonsense, if companies took the loss from 2008 many banks and PE wouldn't exist right now. A key part of capitalism is companies failing from bad investments, entropy, or other factors. You need the bust to create the boom.
The Chicago school opposes monopolies and bailouts, but they support the conditions that inevitably lead to monopolies and too-big-to-fail companies.
The conditions get created by government distortion of a market. Chicago School discourages government intervention.
That lack of intervention is what created the conditions
Capitalism naturally moves towards monopoly. Government regulation prevents monopolies. Capitalism accumulates power. Capitalists use that power to influence the government into letting them accumulate more power, until they have enough power to remove the regulations that prevent monopolies, then the capitalists form monopolies, then we get the very situation that we're describing.
Government regulation also creates and sustains monopolies. Most cable companies have competition prohibited by law. Bail outs allow companies that should fail and be replaced by many smaller companies to instead be more monopolistic.
Most cable companies have competition prohibited by law.
And how do you think laws like these came into existence? Capitalists accumulated power and then used that power to influence the government to protect their business.
You're so close but for some reason you refuse to accept that business can and does influence the government.
But beyond that, the regulations we're talking about were anti-monoply regulations. Despite you saying that the Chicago school is anti-monoply, they pushed to defang regulations that combated monopolies. Your justification is that regulations create monopolies, but you provide no reasoning why defanging anti-monoply regulations would reduce monopolies.
Blaming capitalism because doing a bad thing led to bad results is like blaming a recipe for being bad when you swap the eggs for cottage cheese. When you let companies make rules, that's government intervention.
"that's not real capitalism" seems to be the new "that's not real communism".
Capitalism gave unscrupulous people the power to do bad things. It is ignorant to try to absolve capitalism of this.
Capitalism is a tool to concentrate wealth and power, it is absolutely shocked Pikachu when those people use that wealth and power to influence the government to do bad things.
You're claiming both that the government is the problem for not stopping people from doing bad things, and also you're saying that the Chicago school was right for pressuring the government to remove their ability to stop people from doing bad things.
No I'm only claiming that the government was acting outside it's role of ensuring a free market. When they do this it leads to distortion and provides a pathway to monopolies. Government has a role to ensure markets stay free by doing things like punishing fraud and enforcing contract law.
What they shouldn't be doing is providing incentives for specific behaviors, or creating regulatory hurdles that prevent new companies from competing in a market. They also shouldn't be bailing out companies that are too big to fail or giving them beneficial bankruptcy terms.
It's not the cars fault for breaking down if you don't change the oil and add sugar to the gas.
You're can't have one without the other.
The Chicago school promoted unfettered access to power for companies, they're complicit in the companies using that power to influence the government to do unhealthy things like defang antitrust regulation.
To use your stupid analogy; if you take your car to the mechanic, and the mechanic tells you that your car doesn't use oil, then it is the mechanic's fault when your car breaks down.
Here the mechanic is the Chicago school, you are the govt, and the car is the market.
“If only we keep the endless greed machine leashed then surely it won’t bite us, now let’s get it some more chewable collar cause that’s what it asked for”.
top 100 comments