cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36828107
ID: WookieeMark @EvilGenXer posted:
"OK so look, Capitalism is right wing.
Period.
If you are pro-capitalism, you are Right Wing.
There is no pro-capitalist Left. That’s a polite fiction in the US that no one can afford any longer as the ecosystem is actually collapsing around us."
Acting as if the terms left and right aren’t completely arbitrary.
You could also be called a biologist. Capital is the equivalent of teeth and claws.
Yes it is right wing… Obviously? Any other big news?
This is controversial and possiblt world-shattering to many who exist entirely within the American political bubble.
Well I’m from Germany
The down votes just mean it needed saying
That’s the Overton Window I’m talkin’ about
Capitalism is like fire. Unchecked, it will happily consume your house. Never the less, it’s an excellent tool for certain tasks. It must be handled with care and contained appropriately.
Right now, a lit of the world looks like London during the great fire. Capitalism has been allowed to run unchecked, and has gotten completely out of control. The massive dilemma is how to reign it in, without collapsing large chunks of society.
Abandoning Capitalism completely is almost as bad as letting it run unchecked.
Tf is this nonsense? Why do you think “a little capitalism” is a good thing? Just a sprinkling of exploitation to keep things spicy?
Marx identified that capitalism by necessity leads to an endless cycle of collapses. There is no way to avoid suffering under capitalism.
A fully planned system has also shown to become highly inefficient.
The the key phrase there is “under capitalism”. My point is capitalism can’t be the top level. If it is, then it will run away, exactly as Marx saw.
At the same time, it’s an incredibly effective tool. It allows for dynamic value assessment in a system that has minimal trust. It’s a perfect method of fairly distributing luxuries. It’s akin to a fire being useful when trapped in a fireplace, or a blast furnace. The problems occur when it’s allowed to run amock.
How would you go about fairly distributing limited luxuries, particularly when the value to a given person varies?
Firstly, I challenge the assumption that efficiency is the most important goal. This was addressed very convincingly almost 70 years ago in The Affluent Society:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
This book explains that we should not use the same policies for a society which is constantly struggling on a knife edge between starvation and death. That was not the reality 70 years ago and is much less tha case today.
Even if we assume that efficiency is the most important goal, what you are actually arguing for is well-designed markets as the tool to achieve that. I question even this, since a profitable company is by definition less efficient than one that makes little or no profit, since profit is the extra wealth that the company extracts after paying all bills.
Even if we assume that a for profit market is the best way to manage resources and achieve efficiency, capitalism is fundamentally a bad model for that, since practices like hiding information from consumers or capturing regulators are great ways to increase profits without improving efficiency or managing resources effectively.
tl;dr fuck capitalism. 😉
I agree that a hyper focus on efficiency is a bad plan. At the same time, we would need some corrective mechanism.
A good example would be food preference. Say you have 3 food options, A,B and C. A is the easiest to produce, but bland. B and C are more difficult and so more limited. Some people love B but hate C, others vice versa. Some people would happily just have A, and use the excess value on other luxuries. How do you resolve this?
A limited capital based system would find it easy. Each person has an assigned value. They can choose how to distribute it. This dynamically finds the fairest distribution. By passing it to the farmers, they can choose how to direct effort.
As for regulatory capture, etc. That’s a sign that capitalism is getting out of control. It’s akin to your curtains starting to smoulder. It needs to be used like fire on a wooden ship, with extreme care and control.
I guess we’ll never know if the system you describe here would work, since it has never existed. Companies have been using induced demand, loss leaders, cross subsidies, bundling, marketing, and a million other similar tricks to limit consumers access to knowledge and confuse them since long before Adam Smith fantasized about capital as the best of all possible worlds.
How would you go about fairly distributing limited luxuries, particularly when the value to a given person varies?
I don’t think it should matter, at least not until we’ve guaranteed everyone their human rights. Nutritious food, safe shelter, clean water, medical care.
I don’t think we can afford to worry about luxuries until we solve the problem of affording people.
Right now, we have more than enough to support basic necessities for everyone. It’s mostly a distribution issue now. It’s also being fucked up by run away capitalism creating artificial scarcity.
You will have a hard time getting anyone to join a system that others nothing more than gruel, a grey jumpsuit and a dorm bunk.I would strongly suspect such a system of funneling thr excess to a few elites.
The question is, how to judge values, without a capital based system at all. What is a lead brick worth in corn, or bananas?
Of all things why would a lead brick or bananas or corn need value?
Give corn and bananas to people for free, give the lead brick to whatever science lab or nuclear power plant needs it for free.
If you want to talk about luxury value in a post-scarcity economy, choose something like coffee.
A fully planned system has also shown to become highly inefficient
Nobody was arguing that.
I don’t think you understand what actually is meant by the term “capitalism”. Capitalism does not mean free markets. Capitalism primarily means the ownership of the means of production in private hands. You can come up with a system which is highly regulated, to some degree even planned, which can still be considered capitalistic.
On the other hand, it is easy to imagine a socialist system whose economy consist solely of companies fully owned by the people that work there, i.e. the workers, while the companies themselves engage in a competitive and free market. It would be just like today, except workers have a say in who leads the organization, and how, in a democratic process.
In short capitalism != free market and vice versa.
This isn’t changing people’s minds about crapitalism. Amerikkkans will keep calling liberals, “the left,” and liberals will keep loving crapitalism. This only shows how right wing Amerikkka is as a country. Liberals would much rather be forced to identify as right wing than as anti-crapitalist. These distinctions only bother the keft as we get conflated with liberals constantly. Nobody else gives a shit.
The number of defensive whining from libs in the replies to the OP beg to differ lol, they clearly very much do give a shit. So you keep slapping them in the face with reality until they can’t hide from it anymore, and they have to make a choice, pick a side, and be comfortable with their own decision, and the consequences it brings (including *shock horror*, being called what they choose to be - right wingers and fascism enablers, meanwhile the rest of us have the consequences of said fascism to face).
Leftists coddling liberal feeling is just as productive (E: to progress) as liberals coddling fascist feelings, that is to say - it isn’t, at all. We’re long past the point of prioritising privileged feelings over marginalised lives.
Greed is really the problem. Capitalism is just another apparatus without the means to solve it.
I’d say that Capitalism encourages greed and amplify it.
I think this is not really true. Capitalism means that even if you are not greedy you are forced to destroy all rivals and collect all capital for yourself… otherwise you will be destroyed.
That’s some fine hamburger intellectionlism, right there. Crass, to the pont, confidently incorrect and with a hint of ignorance of anything un-American.
Seeing a lot of that right now; i.e., incendiary, unidimensional, nonsensical hot takes. I think it’s best to ignore them, because there’s IRL work to be done and all this type of person does is blather for attention online.
True enough
Yes, i believe: war is inherently a right-wing thing, and capitalism is the moral equivalent of war, just channeled into formulas.
I also believe that war is inherently unstable and only an unavoidable side-effect of technological progress. It decays naturally into peace, at which point left-wing takes over.
