this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
414 points (75.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
1 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A valid question.
"Capitalism" is a huge umbrella term so means many different things to many different people. And as an extension of this, a lot of the things that are underneath that umbrella are inarguably ... extremely bad. Environmental devastation, the oppression and wage slavery of the third world, the existence of multi-million-dollar worthless baubles when people still die from lack of affordable health care... Even if you're very pro-capitalist it would be tough to argue that all aspects of capitalism are great for humans and humanity. Capitalism optimizes for economic performance, not human happiness.
Also a lot of people's only experience with oppression is through capitalism. Here, I am talking about the alienation of workers from their labor (or, put more plainly, "shitty jobs"). It's pretty bad for the soul to work as a wage slave in Amazon Fulfillment Warehouse #143249 earning $14/hour while bosses so removed from you they may as well be on another planet earn roughly $14,000,000/minute for doing nothing more than sitting in an office for 2 hours a day and sexually harassing their hot secretaries. Obviously there's more to it than this for those of us who are more pro-capitalism, but I think it's easy to see how some people get very angry about these conditions very rapidly.
Personally, despite these problems, I am more pro-capitalist than not, but it is because I experience (and have experienced) a fair amount of non-capitalism-related-oppression. As I have said numerous times capitalism is not perfect and is far from perfection. Nevertheless, it is the only economic system under which minorities such as LGBTQ+ people have been able to advance their agendas and see a modicum of gains in the field of civil rights. People hate on rainbow capitalism but I personally love it (and, by extension, fear Target and other companies caving to Republican pressure campaigns). The alternative to rainbow capitalism is companies and people hating LGBTQ+ people... and that is a far, far worse outcome for me than Northrop Grumman having a float in a Pride parade.
This is also a pretty typical leftist divide though. Those of us more on the "identity politics" side tend to see communists as white bros with bad beards whose only experience of adversity is that they're jealous of how much money their bosses make. On the other hand, communists see identity politics proponents as wanting more gay disabled Black trans drone pilots. Both these critiques are obviously basically true because everyone is problematic.
But I think that's basically where the capitalism hate on the Internet comes from.
Thanks for engaging with me so politely!
You're right! But I don't see how the bad things are the fault of capitalism. Capitalism is a tool intended to fix these very problems!
Environmental devastation is an externality because the rules haven't been defined properly-- if the rules of capital ownership around environmental concerns were clarified (through some system of carbon emission limitations and carbon credits), then I'm sure capitalism could optimize for a good environmental outcome. A bad thing, to be sure, but not the fault of capitalism.
Oppression/wage-slavery in the third world happens mostly in nations that are the least capitalist. Also, the capitalist system works for the benefit of the country that establishes it. I believe this is how it should be. Other nations can simply block all trade if they want to remain unaffected, but shouldn't be surprised if the capitalist nation simply takes advantage of their non-optimal economic choices. Again, a huge problem, but not the fault of capitalism.
Mis-allocation of resources is the very problem that capitalism is best at solving. I'd argue that systems like public healthcare are hampering the ability of capitalism to solve these problems.
Agreed-- I've been in that situation, and understand that it doesn't seem fair. But were any other systems better? It was worse to be a farmer owned by your local feudal lord, no?
Ah I see I may have been preaching to the choir here, I apologize. Your perspective is appreciated, regardless! Thanks for your input!
What definition of capitalism are you using here? Because I think most commonly-accepted definitions definitely do not assign this as an intention of capitalism.
Strong regulations, moral actors, and careful control can fix many of capitalism's problems. But the kind of unfettered capitalism that, for example, anarcho-libertarians espouse would certainly not lead to less environmental devastation, oppression/wage-slavery, and/or mis-allocation of resources.
Historically I think most people would agree capitalism is in a better state than it has ever been. Capitalism as practiced in the late 19th/early 20th century was very different from our understanding of it today and was much much worse across most dimensions. That is a result of evolving regulatory frameworks making capitalism more compatible with what we define as happiness, justice, and morality. Hopefully we can continue curbing the issues of capitalism while encouraging the things it is good at (like making numbers goes up and creating lots of shiny things people like).
Definitely true. But this is not a problem for most capitalist critiques; that the current system is better in some ways than others doesn't mean it also isn't bad.
This is a very difficult thread for me, because you’ve immediately started it from what feels like an insincere position of insisting on the polite debate of a system that has actively harmed innumerable people. And continues to do so.
While I don’t deny that polite debate is preferable to flame wars and anger, you’ve come in here to try and debate a subject that raises passions.
And the reason I say this from the outset is because of comments like this;
The ‘rules’ in this case have been defined. Most countries have rules in place to govern the environmental impact of industry. But companies led by capitalists ignore those rules as far as they can, which is how we are where we are.
Here in the UK, we have record breaking amounts of sewage and pollution in our rivers, because our water companies are run by capitalists to turn a profit. The fines from the government are ultimately paid by those of us who pay our water bills. The people in charge continue to pay themselves and their shareholders well.
And this is where capitalism fails miserably, in my opinion. As noted in another comment in here: capitalism is built for profits, not for human comfort. Businesses who pollute know full well that they should reduce their emissions, clean up their waste, and be better global citizens, but left unchecked, they won’t. You admit yourself in that quoted comment, that capitalism needs a set of rules around carbon credits and such to address the problem. They know there’s a problem, but are waiting for governments to force them to clean up their act.
That doesn’t make me feel that capitalism is the kind, loving economic system we all need. Quite the opposite.