Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I supporse you studied economics at the University of Reddit? That confidence is.. Well, let's leave it at that.
Trickle-down economics is one way of doing Captialism, and sure it's shit served on a silver plate, but to say that all of it, is a massive stretch. SoDem economics is also Captialistic.
"Healthcare become commodities for the privileged." In America certianly, but that's the results of decades of useless politicans you and your neighboors elected, basic regulation and reforming instituations could solve this.
"We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet." Celebrating billionaires is a cultural problem, not an economic one, teachers havin' to work multipe jobs to make ends is again, the failure of your state and federal politicans.
"The free market, bless its invisible heart, seems far more interested in churning out the next Kardashian phone case than curing cancer." I'm sure the demograpic that follows the Kardashian could solve cancer if they just tried hard enough.
"The true scandal of capitalism isn't just the grotesque inequality, it's the moral deadening it fosters" That's again the fault of your elected politicans not Captialism. My home land, Denmark is also Captialist but we are doing just fine dealing with inequality.
"We deserve better. We deserve a system that values human life over profit margins, a system that rewards hard work, not inheritance." Resources are not endless, hard work is rewarded when it contrubutes to society and the economic. Every country that tried their luck with a command economic got into some serious humanitarian problem at one point of another.
Going through this loaded me with alot of second hand embarrassment, but still I'm certian your heart is in the right place.
Socdem cope, typical of Scandinavia.
Going through this reminded me of the "last man" scene with Winston in 1984.
You'd make a great candidate for the last capitalist. Looking like the last guy when the nukes drop shouting "we can still fix this guys" from the rooftops.
You didn't counter a single one of my counter argurments, instead resorting to a childish "lol u dumb" respond completely invalidating yourself as honest and respectful actor in our field of interest.
Take an hour or two and listen to the peoples of Eastern Europe about what it was like living under Communist tyranny, theres alot of familliar language with countries that's had their culture nation and idenity crushed under imperialism
Alexander Vondra, a Czech dissident, one of the 242 signatories of Charter 77, former Czech Ambassador to the United States and is currently a member of the European parliament. In 2014 Chomsky called people like him cowards and Vondra responded with the following:
"I cannot understand how anybody can respect the reasoning of this poor man, in our country in particular. During the same days when Vaclav Havel was serving time in a communist prison cell because he advocated for basic democratic values, Chomsky was sitting around Boston cafes, penning articals in full support of Pol Pots genocide in Cambodia. If the world continues to listen to the bullshitting of such people with an intellectual admiration, we will once again end up in gulags and concentration camps."
A real moral bankrupt egotistical bag of shit. Chomsky imagens himself as a leader of a successful revolution that's gonna collectivise the economy, crush counter-revolutionaries with firing squads and destroy the west.
Most socialist have adopted a more radical form of SocDem, but Marxists havent. All that rethoric about utopia is just whistling Dixie.
[Stand for Parliamentary Democracy, liberty and rule of law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQm7UqF-YA)
I may counter your arguments later if i conclude it would not be wasted.
Right now i want to tell you that i actually am from Eastern Europe (Romania) so i don't have to "listen to the peoples", i experienced it all myself. But i did listen to my grandpas about how the 1940 capitalism was too, and even my great grandfather about live prior to 1914.
I take it you're from Czechia ? Or are you a westerner ?
Waaiittt... So in Romania you celebrate billionaires, teachers works multipe jobs, and the Kardashian are a influencal cultural phenomenon?
You had a section where you said healthcare has become a commodity for the priviliged, but it's gone. Really werid thing to be up in arms about, giving that Romania spends 1,9% of it's GDP on healthcare and is available to all...
Then theres the trickle-down economics, never have I heard a fellow European complain about it, the EU is too taxed and regulated to classify us as such.
I'd be shocked if you've got anything nice to say about Nicolae Ceaușescus or The Securitate, which was descriped as brutal even by Sovies standards.
Don't bother responding if you are gonna play rhetorical games again.
Some day you will back up your claims with evidence, research and data..., but today is not that day.
Until then:
[Life Expectancy Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy)
[Child Mortality Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality)
[Maternal Mortality Ratio by Countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maternal-mortality?tab=chart&country=USA~SWE~AUS~JPN~TUR~ETH)
[Life Expectancy Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy)
[Daily Supply of Calories per person](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=GBR~CHN~OWID_WRL~IND~USA)
[Malnutrition: Prevalence of childhood stunting - done with male/female](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-stunting-male-vs-female?time=1986..2021&country=USA~CHN~VNM~LAO~CUB~PRK~KOR)
[Share of the Population that is Undernourished by world region but you can go in and select countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-undernourishment?country=OWID_WRL~Sub-Saharan+Africa+%28FAO%29~Southern+Asia+%28FAO%29~South+America+%28FAO%29~Northern+Africa+%28FAO%29~Central+Asia+%28FAO%29~South-eastern+Asia+%28FAO%29~Western+Europe+%28FAO%29~Northern+America+%28FAO%29~Latin+America+and+the+Caribbean+%28FAO%29~Southern+Africa+%28FAO%29)
[The amazing hockey stick graph – Global GDP over the long run, 1-2021](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run)
[Share of Population Living in Extreme Poverty by country or region](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-extreme-poverty?tab=chart&country=BGD~BOL~MDG~IND~CHN~ETH~OWID_WRL)
>Fuck your statistics I had to step over three starving babies just to get off my front porch this morning capitalism kills
Really? And you are on Reddit? (in case you are not joking)
All these are absolute statistics and don’t really say much economically. Sure they are nice to haves and can be appreciated, but we have nothing to compare them too really. I’m reminded of Dr. Evil and his “one baguillion dollar” metrics.
If you want better indicators of economic performance take a look at generational inequality and social mobility. It’s truly abhorrent. It doesn’t take a rocket science to see that America has been lied too. You still don’t have a healthcare system, homeless and drug issues increasing, and the largest incarcerated population on the planet. I have a feeling it’s to do with the hyper stagnant wage growth with respect to labor productivity. That’s another atrocious metric that bolsters my own misanthropy. Truly disgusting and something needs to change; the reason why I border on revolutionist some days.
Life expectancy only means something relative to others countries' life expectancy. The link literally shows a graph with comparisons as soon as you open it.
Child mortality *rate* is a relative statistic both in and of itself (India's 3.1% is, for example, relative to its population) and *again* immediately a graph is shown comparing between countries.
...
...
...
Share of population living in extreme poverty... Well, it has "share" in the name.
And everything in between is the same. Literally everything linked is given in a relative sense.
Just admit it, nothing is important to you, and everything is dispensable as uninteresting or "not saying much", except statistics which might as well be translated to - "how much someone is richer than me?"
It doesn't matter if you live in the 95th percentile in health, or education, or child mortality, or wealth. All that matters is how much you can completely disregard any and all points of information that point to *anything* good, as long as inequality is still a thing, and you get to point to Bezos and cry inequality. It also doesn't matter that if you weren't a monkey yourself and actually put in the work to simulate what a difference your wealth and lifestyle would have *if every last cent* of the richest of the rich was completely equally distributed across people, you'd find out that on average, it would probably translate to a very modest lifestyle change. Although, with your level of analysis, I wouldn't be surprised if you earned much less than average and thus it would lead to... wait for it... a somewhat larger but still quite modest lifestyle change.
Also, if you actually read the generational wealth and economic mobility indices right, you'd find out that as time passes by, it's actually *the richer people* who find it harder to hold on to their wealth than it is for poorer people to gain wealth.
Did you even understand that first sentence? Did I say life expectancy is not "how many years you live"? I think someone is so caught up in being an idiot that basic ability to read is compromised.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you have proven nothing. Taking only your first statistic:
The United State’s life expectancy is less than 1 year longer than communist China.
India’s life expectancy is 7 years shorter than China.
Therefore based on the world’s most populous 3 countries communism yields a much longer lifespan than capitalism.
That statement is as stupid as everything you’ve written.
You are implicitly attributing all of humanity’s progress in the modern world to capitalism even though all metrics of human progress are objectively uncorrelated with capitalism.
This is like saying feudalism is responsible for sparking the Renaissance in Italy. No. Feudalism existed prior to and after the Renaissance and is completely different and uncorrelated to it.
Again this is like saying capitalism created the holocaust, nuclear proliferation, and 2 world wars. No actually capitalism simply existed while lots of other things were happening.
Your chart on human life expectancy shows a sharp uptick beginning in 1870 however that is not the year capitalism began and is almost 100 years after the wealth of nations was written.
Let’s take a specific example. British India. The British took over in 1858. Life expectancy declined from 25 years to 21 years by 1920. Then it began an uptick that accelerated after the British left india.
First, your method is equally terrible statistical analysis. I just through out stats that the world has made tremendous progress unlike this OP is doing the gloom and doom nonsense.
Second, you are finding the exception to the norm instead of analysis of the average.
Third, India had a socialist period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India#Socialist_period
According to your terrible methods now socialism is the worst.
Tbf, you are overall correct in that
>You are implicitly attributing all of humanity’s progress in the modern world to capitalism
That has to do, however, with this sub attributing that more than me. This sub has a very far left view of socialism and so far left that it is common to see arguments that the USSR, PRC, etc were state capitalism and not “socialist”. It’s only when there is counter argument like you are doing that all of sudden these countries are pulled into the socialist “tent” (typically). So, fair game for me to just put out stats without any rhetoric, right?
Tl;dr I have proven plenty. I have proven the OP is full of shit and they need to support their outlandish claims with real evidence.
Ok fair enough I will accept that dumping a barrage of counter examples was because of the lack of sophistication of the discourse in this sub and there was little value to writing anything higher quality.
What about the fact Russia was poor? Look at Eastern Europe. Huge growth, still poorer than Western Europe. Going from 2 to 10 will be a bigger increase than going from 100 to 120.
By this logic capitalism is superior because there is a huge growth in Eastern Europe?
Capitalist countries were at a the same level as Russia at some point in it's history and it took them a lot more to evolve. USA or UK took centuries to industrialize, USSR went from medieval peasant state to nuclear/spatial superpower in 30 years.
Yeah, because UK was the first. It's easy to copy. South Korea after the war was one of the poorest i the world. The North was the one that was industrialised. In the 1970S South Korea was still poorer than the North Korea and was in the bottom 50%. Half of Africa was still richer than South Korea. Today Siuth Korea has one of the biggest economies. Same with Taiwan. Also North Korea has nukes. Is it a rich country? I'm not saying the USSR didn't industrialise, but it never was that efficient as you claim.
At least are you from a post-communist country?
If it was easy to copy everyone would be doing it. Also i can't compare colonies the USA propped up (South Korea, West germany, etc) with de factor monarchies like North Korea that are excluded from most of the world trade therefore can't access network effects.
I am from a post-communist country yes, and capitalism has been an existential disaster for us.
Woah, US just by propping "colonies" managed to make them world class economies. So benevolent. Thank god the USSR was not imperialist.
Just look at China, they needed to adopt capitalist policies to propel their economy. Botswana is also a good example. Vietnam too. Banghladesh too. It even managed to surpass India recently.
I gave North Korea as an example how South Korea was broke as fuck. Also why can't you compare? Before the collapse of the USSR North Korea was way more connected and dependent on trade. So, how it's invalid to compare how it was performong in the 1970s. Are you trolling or am I not writing it clear.
Also what country? Unless you are like from Ukraine, Belarus or rural Russia, you are better of now, especially if you are young (if you were like in your 20s or older during the transiti, on period in the 1990s then that would have been rough).
It was not benevolent, it was in their self interest. Also it was not that hard, the size and number of said direct propped up colonies being small compared to USA.
USSR was surely imperialistic, but not to the extent USA is.
Also no, my eastern european country is not better now. Continued depopulation caused by capitalism will lead to it's extinction if capitalism is nor abolished. It's literally either capitalism or my people, both can't survive.
At least the soviets wanted to develop the economy, even if it was inefficient in the long run.
The Nazis werent even that good. Their economy was going to crash if they didn't go to war.
USSR has achieved the fastest 30 year transformation in history, China has achieved the highest sustained decades long economic growth on a large population in history.
Did they do that before or after large-scale market liberalization and privatization? They grew more in the first six years following 1980 than in the thirty years prior.
So for USSR you have no argument and for China you mention liberalization without the knowledge that the 50% portion of the chinese economy that is private is still de facto under direct party control. So we still have 100% government control over the economy. Incidentally That's pretty much similar to Japan even if they have a bigger private sector and no communist party, and that just goes to show asian countries have a preference for a certain kind of government totalitarianism. Hell in Japan "the collective" is even more treasured over the individual than in China.
That sounds awesome, I wish I could have lived in the USSR and not this capitalist hellhole.
Sarcasm aside I don't understand how when prosperity increases under capitalism it's just a coincidence, but when the USSR and China drag their populations into the modern era a few decades and manmade famines later, it's proof of something good.
You're comparing these systems to the horrors of capitalism. So how did the West do in this time? How did Hong Kong compare to the mainland? Did things improve in China after Dengist reforms or get worse? What about the SEZs? How about east vs west Germany, or north vs south Korea.
The claim that any country "would have done even better" under socialism has all the logical and empirical weight of "utopia would be better than what we have now."
We've had no shortage of collectivist revolutions like the one you're calling for yet again - why exactly has not a single one reached the quality of life capitalism produced decades ago, let alone eclipsed it? It's the answer to all of our problems, isn't it?
Where you'd want to live is good to know for your personal case, but over 50% of the people that lived under USSR know it was better for them.
If a country starts from a poorer position even if it evolves faster it can still be behind after a certain period, so obviously a country with a worse system but that had a leg up can be preferred by some immigrants. But i question if you really want to go down the net migration rabbit hole and observe if the countries where most people migrate to per capita are really that great, and countries where most people migrate from per capita are really hellholes.
Capitalism has taken longer to industrialize countries, so it's not a coincidence.
"You're comparing these systems to the horrors of capitalism. So how did the West do in this time?"
Started most wars and kill about 100 million people every few years. But their crimes are not talked about, only the crime their enemies did decades ago. That's propaganda in action.
"why exactly has not a single one reached the quality of life capitalism produced decades ago"
Because the revolutions happened in the poorest countries and have not had time to catch up.
Relax, by 2100 China's dominance over USA will be obvious to everyone, as the fact that it's not capitalism. Sure it's not worker ownership, but government ownership, but it's a step in abolishing capitalism.
>Capitalism has taken longer to industrialize countries
There's really little discussion to be had if someone just decides what the facts are, based on what they'd like them to be.
>Because the revolutions happened in the poorest countries and have not had time to catch up.
China just didn't have enough time to catch up with Hong Kong? North Korea started a few decades behind South?
If we gave East Germany a few more years, we would have had to build another wall to keep the West Germans from fleeing there?
I lived in Venezuela in its horrible capitalist phase, back when refugees from surrounding countries would flee *to* Venezuela. Which direction are things moving now? Just needs a little more time, and by 2100 they'll have to build a wall to keep the Americans out?
>
Relax, by 2100 China's dominance over USA will be obvious to everyone
If the Chinese are doing everything better, you should spend a little time learning about their history. It's true their system is far from pure capitalism. Nor do the workers own the MoP. They did start far behind the US, and the west in general. And stayed there. For **decades**.
Then some things started [changing](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china). And it wasn't this collective action you're calling for. The following decades saw a lot more reforms, and a lot more [growth](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomi-Ovaska/publication/337470147/figure/fig2/AS:828429905702912@1574524489372/Chinas-GDP-per-Capita-Since-1929-and-the-Era-of-Institutional-Reforms.png).
Pretty impressive. But for scale, [here's](https://img.caixin.com/2018-08-16/1534410530322039.jpg) the US too, spiraling toward its late-stage capitalist demise. Is your theory that China will soon regress to a more socialistic economy, and then we'll *really* see things improve? Once they collectivize those silly Special Economic Zones, where nearly *all* of their wealth is created?
Many socialists, including in this sub, do claim that China's capitalist reforms are just a temporary measure, a necessary step in a Marxist progression. China must first build wealth before it can truly realize socialism effectively. At least those socialists acknowledge some reality, that the way China grew that wealth was by abandoning much of its socialism. They weren't "ready" for it yet. For the sake of the Chinese, I hope they still aren't ready in 2100.
There are many arguments. Let me throw one at random
"We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet"
That didn't happen under communism in my country. This happens now under capitalism. Is it a good thing ?
X bad thing happens because of capitalism is an argument against capitalism.
Or you admit you think celebrating billionaires while teachers moonlight as drivers is a great thing ?
>"We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet"
We who... Wtf u talking about? I see none of that... Care to use logic instead of your perspective of people around you?
That is no argument.
This is as stupid as people saying "*we pay Messi and Neymar a gazillion dollar while trash collection are paid nothing, therefore capitalism failed*".
There is literally no cause and consequence better the first and the second half, even less so connection to capitalism.
It is not an argument, and for that I don't even know why you are on this sub. Wasting your time online if you can't even make a coherent thought.
"There is literally no cause and consequence better the first and the second half, even less so connection to capitalism."
Billionaires never existed under socialism in my country, so it sure as hell there is a connection to capitalism. And yes, the Neymar/trash collection argument is valid too in fact.
The arguments are valid, you'd just hate for billionaires not to exist because then you wouldn't have who to worship.
>Billionaires never existed under socialism in my country
They did. You being oblivious and ignorant is no argument.
>so it sure as hell there is a connection to capitalism
You **REALLY** can't grasp the difference between correlation and causation. You shouldn't be wasting your time on this sub.
>And yes, the Neymar/trash collection argument is valid too in fact.
🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Name one romanian billionaire during the communist period 1950-1989 then mister non-ignorant.
"can't grasp the difference between correlation and causation"
Not all correlation is causation but all causation is correlation. Simple.
Let me explain why socialism **causes** no billionaires. Because their wealth gets confiscated.
A corporation has a leader, yet even 99% of the profits can go to the shareholders, not the leader.
So why do you hate the wealth being more diffusely distributed to all the people and want it concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires ? Do you have a billionaire fetish ?
What happened is that teachers were better paid so they didn't have to moonlight as drivers, had more respect, authority, and there were no billionaires to celebrate. Good for teachers bad for billionaires.
Feel free to retreat to your yacht to mourn for the 3000+ or so billionaires that exist on this planet. Only you can save them bankman !
“A campaign was led[by whom?] against schoolteachers of the old intelligentsia who were asserted to be working against the system and were even allowing priests to spiritually influence schoolchildren. Teachers accused of such could be fired, and in most cases the Soviet authorities imprisoned or exiled them.
The antireligious press identified by name believers among the ranks of top Soviet scholars. This labeling led to the 1929–1930 purge of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, in which up to 100 scholars, their assistants and graduate students were arrested on forged charges and given sentences that ranged from three years of internal exile to the death penalty.”
Nah, we are going to keep capitalism, seems to be a better system for teachers. Thanks for playing though. You are welcome to submit any other ideas. We just ask that you do more research in the future before submitting.
Your observance that the religious loyalist elements were purged from society at the beginning of communism changes nothing about what i previously said.
But i take it you are a christian then since you seem to care so much ? :)
You cannot amend a previous denied option. You are however welcome to re-submit. We are always looking for the best and brightest ideas. We just feel that this one seemed to be reductive from our current progress. Thank you. -Capitalism
The funniest part is knowing tons of teachers that operated both under communism and capitalism (mostly because one of my close relatives being a teacher herself) and being lectured about my own people and country by a clueless foreigner.
Even those two things that were made in a hurry therefore had victims were a success in eradicating hunger forever through agriculture industrialization.
Now imagine what free market socialism would do.
Certainly less victims than the 100 million people that die every few years because of capitalism.
If it's more profitable to export food to foreigners when your own people starve, that will get done under capitalism.
It's easy enough to look at agricultural production 1920-1960 and see it increased orders of magnitude because of soviet industrialization. If capitalism remained the system, the agriculture would not industrialize and Russia would be basically like african agriculture even now.
So that must mean he was not the perfect example of socialism, and that doesn't change the fact that without the soviet industrialization russians would be starving even now.
>We had enough food for everyone for centuries, without capitalism world hunger would be ended by 1700 or so.
You need to familiarize yourself with Malthusianism
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism)
The first part of your statement is **indisputably false**. Up until the last few centuries, we made enough food to feed ourselves but not much of a surplus. One or two bad harvests, or any other event which disrupted normal agricultural production, and lots of people starved and died.
As a result of the industrial revolution (and you can make a strong argument that this was facilitated by capitialism), much of the world broke out of the Malthusian Trap, and food production grew exponentially for the first time in history. Of course, population growth has followed, but mostly in poor countries. Once population grows declines in these countries (as it has in rich countries), there should be far less famine in the world then there was in the past.
Ah capitalist personification, so droll.
Capitalism did nothing, but the scientists slaving away under capitalism have been slowed enough by capitalism that it will probably only be 2100 when most cancers will be semi-curable, instead of early 1900s.
Just 200 years of slowage, no biggie.
Cuba and China are curing cancer far faster and cheaper than your capitalist countries and China is advancing five times faster in space technology than the US.
https://www.space.com/china-space-progress-breathtaking-speed-space-force
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/usaf-general-steve-kwast-china-in-space-five-times-faster-than-us.html
Not to mention, China is far superior to the US in housing, green energy, forestation, medicinal coverage, infrastructure and productive power.
Let's see how you'll cope with this one.
Probably by cracking open a cold beer when I see the footage of Beijing burning on my reddit thread. It's too bad their population is on a terminal decline from an ageing epidemic and the youth are lying flat to leverage all that progress created by capitalism. I wonder how many Africans they'll have to import to do all of that for them, but then again that wouldn't be very Marxist. I'm sure you're happy that China is a hypercapitalist dystopia with horrible labour conditions and worker's rights, campist that you are.
This is the pitifulness of a Western chauvinist watching nothing but anti-China grifters and giving slight glances (they cannot spend more than 10 minutes to read) at Western tabloid articles.
Beijing is far superior than any Western city and they have at least 5 cities just as powerful and advanced. The Chinese population is doing what any industrial country does. Japan has been struggling with this for decades. Yet it won't stop China. You morons have been saying they were doomed since 2008 yet it always subverted your expectations. Your entire ideology is coping.
I have given you facts and all you could do was foam at the mouth like the dog of the US you are and claim shit without giving any sources. Immigration is non Marxist now hurray! Another bullshit flown right out of a racists ass finding it's place in political discussions.
China is one of the happiest countries in the world, number 1 in 2023, with the highest democracy perception index and a 90% government satisfaction score. The US has half of it's people on anti-depressants and 1/8th of it's households in food insecurity. Suicide rate is far higher than Chinas and the government has a 16% trust score compared to China's 80%. Not surprising since the US has been brutalizing it's people since it's inception as even today police beats up people for standing up against literal genocide the country is responsible for.
I'm going to block you because speaking with fascist minded "people" like you is just a waste of time. But for hilarity's sake I'll wait for one more reply from you so I can dunk on you further.
Not reading that lol, cry about it you impotent campist clown. If anyone's a fascist, it's the person that simps for China, a fascist, ultra nationalist regime.
Why are so many of these posts written like pamphlets.
There's no argument being made, just assertions.
You say it's finally time for something new, "collective action", as if this isn't a very old idea, with a *very* questionable history. Since you're convinced you'll do it better now, make *that* argument at least. Explain how your socialism will avoid the pitfalls of past socialism. Address *some* tiny fraction of the centuries of discussion, research, evidence on this topic instead of just saying "why aren't we doing socialism yet, it's obviously better."
The US is socialist- we subsidize the downside of the business cycle. Laws protect the wealthy through LLCs and tax structures. The FED bails out failed businesses through quantitative easing and monetary policy with an eye corporate wellbeing.
The working class be damned. OP is ineloquently saying, "let's restructure the socialism the US does to benefit the people"
It's seriously embarrassing how terminally online you are. All you do is just post pretentious, substanceless drivel and pretend that you're an intellectual. I bet this all sounded better in your demented head.
A farmer had two sons. He went to the eldest and said “go out and work in the fields.” But his eldest said “I am busy.” However, soon the son felt guilty and went to do what his father had said. Meanwhile the father went to the younger son and said “go out and work in the fields.” The younger son said “Of course” but did not go. Now who actually did what his father asked?
You see in that story the eldest son is capitalism has drastically improved the lives of billions of people despite claiming to regard greed as a virtue and communism is the younger son which produced the holodomor despite claiming to be about selflessness
The eldest son is the worker class that through work has improved the lives of billions.
The younger son that said "of course" is the capitalist class, they did not go because they were too busy holding hooker parties on yachts, but pretended they work.
By their works you shall know them.
What percentage of your income do you give yearly to the poor ?
Being unemployed doesn't mean you don't have an yearly income.
So what percentage of your income do you give yearly to the poor ?
I work in the medical research field.
Yes, since you have an income and you are not employed it must mean you get 100% of your income by passive means and you are a capitalist.
I am working class because most of my income comes from wage labor.
I don’t think it’s that simple bro the real analogy would be some random from town taking over the farm and your neighbouring country tanking your economy, forcing you to starve and then banning you from leaving. Your older brother would instead inherit the farm, your country profits economically from their geopolitical isolation and top military expenditure, then he goes and hires a bunch of minimum wage workers, never increases their pay, and scales it to buggery.
[https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/Ealy\_Slave\_Bible](https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/Ealy_Slave_Bible)
This ever existing would beg to differ. John Brown is commendable, but he is an an aberration compared to his contemporaries. Your religion explicitly condoned and was used to morally permit slaves, regardless of any other modern interpretation, or individual like John Brown, this did happen in the name of your God.
Figures that an ideology that can only attempt to be relevant today through picking and choosing favorable passages and absolutely lying about the unfavorable ones would attract revisionist historians and logically fallacious interlocutors.
You are attempting to argue that my religion is ok with slavery by citing an article about how slave owners wouldn’t let their slaves read the whole bible. Wouldn’t that source demonstrate that the Bible is naturally an anti slavery document?
The slave bible was edited to remove any of the self determination or freedom and leave the passages about slaves obeying their masters. You can't just interpret that to be the opposite.
so like, REMOVING:
>Galatians 5:1 ESV For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
>Colossians 4:1 ESV Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
But KEEPING:
>Titus 2:9-10 ESV Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
>Ephesians 6:5 ESV Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
How about the passages that explicitly outline the rules of owning slaves:
>Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
>Exodus 21:20-21 ESV When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
If you can't comprehend your own book, why are you arguing with me about its contents? If you can't be bothered to read the article I sent, why are you assuming it supports your argument?
EDIT: This is LITERALLY the third paragraph of the article I sent:
>for the same owners “hoped to shield their slaves from the liberating aspects of literacy.” One way to do so was not to teach them to write—reading allowed for the nurture of their souls, “but teaching them to write would threaten the social order.” A second way was to **limit the parts of the Bible made available** to literate enslaved people.
The problem with these types of posts is that they usually take an ideal society that can never be achieved (whether Socialist or not) as a reference and then compare real-world Capitalism with it. I don't think that's a fair comparison to make.
Either we compare ideal Capitalism against its ideal alternatives or real-world Capitalism against its real-world alternatives
Having better paid teachers won't mean much if there's nothing on the shelves to buy with all the extra pay (like it was common in those societies that already existed)
Before it gets buried, I'd like to say I really don't think the problems you're pointing out are exclusive to capitalism, not even caused by it, but by poor leadership and those in power abusing it to stay in power. I think failed "socialist/communist" governments all have that in common - they were all pretty much dictatorships and I think it could be argued that, at least in the US, we have an oligarchy of sorts that perverts capitalism.
Trying to make money is not a capitalist mindset, trying to make a quality product/service and using generated income to gauge success is a capitalist mindset. The mindset you described is a sociopathic one, and that's where the problem lies; we don't do enough to weed psychopaths out of positions of power. If everyone wanted what was best for everyone else, I don't think our type of economic system would matter.
I guess what I'm getting at is, it's really the people that are the problem in all of this.
Yes, the people are the problem. They are not good enough for capitalism. Read the first part of this
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough)
By ignoring it, because sociopaths don't really give a damn about the pain and suffering of others or fixing systemic problems and improving the system. Right now top rich elites like CEOS are about 20% sociopaths vs 1% in the general population, the process can continue till 100% is reached and all normal people are eliminated from positions of power.
So capitalism can survive fine even with my critique. It's only socialist action that can stop it.
You'd have a point, if socialism had ever produced anything better, but since it hasn't, go away. It's easy to criticize a thing as not perfect, but socialism is even worse.
No it hasn't. Let me quote every socialist ever "wasn't real socialism".
Even if you had one or two examples of so called good socialism, which you don't, the fact that socialism going bad results in North Korea, USSR, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot and a few dozen other catastrophes on a global scale means it's fundamentally flawed.
Early christian communities and the USSR were both better than capitalism for most people. They'd not be good for you if you are a parasite exploiter who wants to get rich from the work of others tho.
If it performed worse why do over 50% of the people who lived in the USSR say it was better then ?
Since then we learned more, so i expect the next socialist experiment to have an even higher approval rating.
What you can say it performed worse for billionaires. Bo hoo.
I dont think it's just that Capitalism is blanket statement immoral, it's just that it's what has worked so far, even if it has the possibility to end up being exploitative. I mean communism and some forms of socialism can be exploitative in a similar vein in that pure socialism requires people to work for little or no material compensation. Ideally people in a socialist system would just be given everything they need to thrive by the state, and they'd just work without being tied to material compensation. Under the wrong circumstances (where the state cant or wont give the populace what they need to thrive) that could be and has been catastrophic (though to be fair it would be catastrophic in any society)
In a post-scarcity world socialism would likely be fine, and honestly, capitalism wouldnt make sense in such a world...but this isnt a post scarcity world. Let me use the example of food scarcity: Much has been said about how some countries could feed the entire world, but if we only rely on a single country to do that, such a thing wouldnt be sustainable. Secondly, as long as opposition forces exist, feeding the world would not be accepted. If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union TECHNICALLY had the farmland to feed the world, but they either didnt or wouldn't. America TECHNICALLY has the farmland to do that, but they wont or cant. China Technically has the farmland to do the same thing, but they wont or cant.
Maybe it's because these places were/are selfish and vindictive which is probably true in some capacity, but I think the greater truth is that feeding the world is intensely difficult and a logistical nightmare at present. This is regardless of whether a country is run by a "dirty commie" or a "capitalist pig".
Anyway, I think my point is that maintaining stability is "easier said than done". Socialism has promising theory behind it, but it can just as easily fall prey to the same problems that capitalism does... capitalists response to your post would basically just be: "why should I be socialist if it has the same issues capitalism does, on top of that, socialists hate me and want to kill me?". Like, theres literally no incentive there???
We already live in a post food scarcity world, we have food for 10 billions. Even in a post-scarcity world as long as we have capitalism we will suffer.
Also history has proven that even imperfect systems like the USSR did not have the same issues as capitalism does.
Yup. No one can escape with the laziness in Capitalism. Either work and provide some mental or physical value.
If you're unable to, that's where governments step in. That's where welfare organisations step in.
Let’s suppose you’re 100% right about your critique of capitalism.
You still haven’t proposed an alternative. Your “very visible fist of collective action” - is vague and imprecise, and also alludes to things that certainly have been tried before and very clearly and visibly failed.
Capitalism is a form of collective action, coordinated with prices and property rights. Most of the problems that people see with capitalism have been ameliorated with the welfare state, and there's no reason to think the welfare state can't / won't expand indefinitely, as we decide more and more things are human rights (e.g. first elementary school, then high school, now college).
The reality is that most of the new, high paying jobs in capitalism are created by small companies becoming large. Tech companies created hundreds of thousands of high paying software jobs from nothing. And granted they also require a lot of "low skill" jobs, but these are at worst parallels to jobs that already existed. Instead of working for a warehouse for Sears, you work for a warehouse for Amazon. Over time these small gains accumulate such that the median household income in the US is up to \~$80k, compared to maybe $10-20k in 1900, when households were much larger.
Any [capitalists] post is useless I think because it just gets drowned in a sea of "vivuzela", "holmordor", "Commies killed billions", "muh HDI" or "communism is when the government does stuff".
What we have to understand is that these people do not come for a debate or to engage in good faith. They just come here and used the same overdone bullshit arguments like "He-man Natur" or "Lol no Food".
This post has just been posturing honestly, it's kind of bad, but these chuds honestly don't deserve any better and most of their posts are the same anyway. This sub just became a schoolyard fight club where people flail around angrily, throwing insults at one another.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I supporse you studied economics at the University of Reddit? That confidence is.. Well, let's leave it at that. Trickle-down economics is one way of doing Captialism, and sure it's shit served on a silver plate, but to say that all of it, is a massive stretch. SoDem economics is also Captialistic. "Healthcare become commodities for the privileged." In America certianly, but that's the results of decades of useless politicans you and your neighboors elected, basic regulation and reforming instituations could solve this. "We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet." Celebrating billionaires is a cultural problem, not an economic one, teachers havin' to work multipe jobs to make ends is again, the failure of your state and federal politicans. "The free market, bless its invisible heart, seems far more interested in churning out the next Kardashian phone case than curing cancer." I'm sure the demograpic that follows the Kardashian could solve cancer if they just tried hard enough. "The true scandal of capitalism isn't just the grotesque inequality, it's the moral deadening it fosters" That's again the fault of your elected politicans not Captialism. My home land, Denmark is also Captialist but we are doing just fine dealing with inequality. "We deserve better. We deserve a system that values human life over profit margins, a system that rewards hard work, not inheritance." Resources are not endless, hard work is rewarded when it contrubutes to society and the economic. Every country that tried their luck with a command economic got into some serious humanitarian problem at one point of another. Going through this loaded me with alot of second hand embarrassment, but still I'm certian your heart is in the right place.
Id just add that the division of labor was a product of industrialisation, not capitalism.
Socdem cope, typical of Scandinavia. Going through this reminded me of the "last man" scene with Winston in 1984. You'd make a great candidate for the last capitalist. Looking like the last guy when the nukes drop shouting "we can still fix this guys" from the rooftops.
You didn't counter a single one of my counter argurments, instead resorting to a childish "lol u dumb" respond completely invalidating yourself as honest and respectful actor in our field of interest. Take an hour or two and listen to the peoples of Eastern Europe about what it was like living under Communist tyranny, theres alot of familliar language with countries that's had their culture nation and idenity crushed under imperialism Alexander Vondra, a Czech dissident, one of the 242 signatories of Charter 77, former Czech Ambassador to the United States and is currently a member of the European parliament. In 2014 Chomsky called people like him cowards and Vondra responded with the following: "I cannot understand how anybody can respect the reasoning of this poor man, in our country in particular. During the same days when Vaclav Havel was serving time in a communist prison cell because he advocated for basic democratic values, Chomsky was sitting around Boston cafes, penning articals in full support of Pol Pots genocide in Cambodia. If the world continues to listen to the bullshitting of such people with an intellectual admiration, we will once again end up in gulags and concentration camps."
Chomsky is the worst sort of hypocrite, a truly disgusting person.
A real moral bankrupt egotistical bag of shit. Chomsky imagens himself as a leader of a successful revolution that's gonna collectivise the economy, crush counter-revolutionaries with firing squads and destroy the west. Most socialist have adopted a more radical form of SocDem, but Marxists havent. All that rethoric about utopia is just whistling Dixie. [Stand for Parliamentary Democracy, liberty and rule of law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQm7UqF-YA)
Yet the average capitalist is far morally inferior to Chomsky.
Not as disgusting as capitalists that increase the price of drugs or ask if "is curing disease a sustainable business model" yes ?
No.
I may counter your arguments later if i conclude it would not be wasted. Right now i want to tell you that i actually am from Eastern Europe (Romania) so i don't have to "listen to the peoples", i experienced it all myself. But i did listen to my grandpas about how the 1940 capitalism was too, and even my great grandfather about live prior to 1914. I take it you're from Czechia ? Or are you a westerner ?
Waaiittt... So in Romania you celebrate billionaires, teachers works multipe jobs, and the Kardashian are a influencal cultural phenomenon? You had a section where you said healthcare has become a commodity for the priviliged, but it's gone. Really werid thing to be up in arms about, giving that Romania spends 1,9% of it's GDP on healthcare and is available to all... Then theres the trickle-down economics, never have I heard a fellow European complain about it, the EU is too taxed and regulated to classify us as such. I'd be shocked if you've got anything nice to say about Nicolae Ceaușescus or The Securitate, which was descriped as brutal even by Sovies standards. Don't bother responding if you are gonna play rhetorical games again.
Some day you will back up your claims with evidence, research and data..., but today is not that day. Until then: [Life Expectancy Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy) [Child Mortality Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality) [Maternal Mortality Ratio by Countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maternal-mortality?tab=chart&country=USA~SWE~AUS~JPN~TUR~ETH) [Life Expectancy Across the Globe](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy) [Daily Supply of Calories per person](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=GBR~CHN~OWID_WRL~IND~USA) [Malnutrition: Prevalence of childhood stunting - done with male/female](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-stunting-male-vs-female?time=1986..2021&country=USA~CHN~VNM~LAO~CUB~PRK~KOR) [Share of the Population that is Undernourished by world region but you can go in and select countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-undernourishment?country=OWID_WRL~Sub-Saharan+Africa+%28FAO%29~Southern+Asia+%28FAO%29~South+America+%28FAO%29~Northern+Africa+%28FAO%29~Central+Asia+%28FAO%29~South-eastern+Asia+%28FAO%29~Western+Europe+%28FAO%29~Northern+America+%28FAO%29~Latin+America+and+the+Caribbean+%28FAO%29~Southern+Africa+%28FAO%29) [The amazing hockey stick graph – Global GDP over the long run, 1-2021](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run) [Share of Population Living in Extreme Poverty by country or region](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-extreme-poverty?tab=chart&country=BGD~BOL~MDG~IND~CHN~ETH~OWID_WRL)
r/optimistsunite Nobody likes pessimists.
Fuck your statistics I had to step over three starving babies just to get off my front porch this morning capitalism kills
>Fuck your statistics I had to step over three starving babies just to get off my front porch this morning capitalism kills Really? And you are on Reddit? (in case you are not joking)
Sounds like you live in a city run by progressives. Think about moving.
No it's run by CAPITALISTS. If we take all Elon Musks money these babies wont have to starve anymore
If you took all 197 billion of Elon's money, it would fund the national debt about 20 days... then what?
Dude come on seriously 😂
All these are absolute statistics and don’t really say much economically. Sure they are nice to haves and can be appreciated, but we have nothing to compare them too really. I’m reminded of Dr. Evil and his “one baguillion dollar” metrics. If you want better indicators of economic performance take a look at generational inequality and social mobility. It’s truly abhorrent. It doesn’t take a rocket science to see that America has been lied too. You still don’t have a healthcare system, homeless and drug issues increasing, and the largest incarcerated population on the planet. I have a feeling it’s to do with the hyper stagnant wage growth with respect to labor productivity. That’s another atrocious metric that bolsters my own misanthropy. Truly disgusting and something needs to change; the reason why I border on revolutionist some days.
That's also an absolute statistic. Clearly the only metric that counts is elephants per capita.
2 out of 2 stats that I listed are literal relative statistics, you absolute monkey.
Life expectancy only means something relative to others countries' life expectancy. The link literally shows a graph with comparisons as soon as you open it. Child mortality *rate* is a relative statistic both in and of itself (India's 3.1% is, for example, relative to its population) and *again* immediately a graph is shown comparing between countries. ... ... ... Share of population living in extreme poverty... Well, it has "share" in the name. And everything in between is the same. Literally everything linked is given in a relative sense. Just admit it, nothing is important to you, and everything is dispensable as uninteresting or "not saying much", except statistics which might as well be translated to - "how much someone is richer than me?" It doesn't matter if you live in the 95th percentile in health, or education, or child mortality, or wealth. All that matters is how much you can completely disregard any and all points of information that point to *anything* good, as long as inequality is still a thing, and you get to point to Bezos and cry inequality. It also doesn't matter that if you weren't a monkey yourself and actually put in the work to simulate what a difference your wealth and lifestyle would have *if every last cent* of the richest of the rich was completely equally distributed across people, you'd find out that on average, it would probably translate to a very modest lifestyle change. Although, with your level of analysis, I wouldn't be surprised if you earned much less than average and thus it would lead to... wait for it... a somewhat larger but still quite modest lifestyle change. Also, if you actually read the generational wealth and economic mobility indices right, you'd find out that as time passes by, it's actually *the richer people* who find it harder to hold on to their wealth than it is for poorer people to gain wealth.
Life expectancy is how many years you live you potato. I can’t be bothered reading the rest of your drivel until you fix your egregious errors.
Did you even understand that first sentence? Did I say life expectancy is not "how many years you live"? I think someone is so caught up in being an idiot that basic ability to read is compromised.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you have proven nothing. Taking only your first statistic: The United State’s life expectancy is less than 1 year longer than communist China. India’s life expectancy is 7 years shorter than China. Therefore based on the world’s most populous 3 countries communism yields a much longer lifespan than capitalism. That statement is as stupid as everything you’ve written. You are implicitly attributing all of humanity’s progress in the modern world to capitalism even though all metrics of human progress are objectively uncorrelated with capitalism. This is like saying feudalism is responsible for sparking the Renaissance in Italy. No. Feudalism existed prior to and after the Renaissance and is completely different and uncorrelated to it. Again this is like saying capitalism created the holocaust, nuclear proliferation, and 2 world wars. No actually capitalism simply existed while lots of other things were happening. Your chart on human life expectancy shows a sharp uptick beginning in 1870 however that is not the year capitalism began and is almost 100 years after the wealth of nations was written. Let’s take a specific example. British India. The British took over in 1858. Life expectancy declined from 25 years to 21 years by 1920. Then it began an uptick that accelerated after the British left india.
First, your method is equally terrible statistical analysis. I just through out stats that the world has made tremendous progress unlike this OP is doing the gloom and doom nonsense. Second, you are finding the exception to the norm instead of analysis of the average. Third, India had a socialist period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India#Socialist_period According to your terrible methods now socialism is the worst. Tbf, you are overall correct in that >You are implicitly attributing all of humanity’s progress in the modern world to capitalism That has to do, however, with this sub attributing that more than me. This sub has a very far left view of socialism and so far left that it is common to see arguments that the USSR, PRC, etc were state capitalism and not “socialist”. It’s only when there is counter argument like you are doing that all of sudden these countries are pulled into the socialist “tent” (typically). So, fair game for me to just put out stats without any rhetoric, right? Tl;dr I have proven plenty. I have proven the OP is full of shit and they need to support their outlandish claims with real evidence.
Ok fair enough I will accept that dumping a barrage of counter examples was because of the lack of sophistication of the discourse in this sub and there was little value to writing anything higher quality.
All those stats would be better and evolve faster without capitalism.
This would be a great discovery! If only you could back it up with some evidence…
1920-1950 USSR.
What happened in 1951?
They slowly abandoned socialist principles.
What about the fact Russia was poor? Look at Eastern Europe. Huge growth, still poorer than Western Europe. Going from 2 to 10 will be a bigger increase than going from 100 to 120. By this logic capitalism is superior because there is a huge growth in Eastern Europe?
Capitalist countries were at a the same level as Russia at some point in it's history and it took them a lot more to evolve. USA or UK took centuries to industrialize, USSR went from medieval peasant state to nuclear/spatial superpower in 30 years.
Yeah, because UK was the first. It's easy to copy. South Korea after the war was one of the poorest i the world. The North was the one that was industrialised. In the 1970S South Korea was still poorer than the North Korea and was in the bottom 50%. Half of Africa was still richer than South Korea. Today Siuth Korea has one of the biggest economies. Same with Taiwan. Also North Korea has nukes. Is it a rich country? I'm not saying the USSR didn't industrialise, but it never was that efficient as you claim. At least are you from a post-communist country?
If it was easy to copy everyone would be doing it. Also i can't compare colonies the USA propped up (South Korea, West germany, etc) with de factor monarchies like North Korea that are excluded from most of the world trade therefore can't access network effects. I am from a post-communist country yes, and capitalism has been an existential disaster for us.
Woah, US just by propping "colonies" managed to make them world class economies. So benevolent. Thank god the USSR was not imperialist. Just look at China, they needed to adopt capitalist policies to propel their economy. Botswana is also a good example. Vietnam too. Banghladesh too. It even managed to surpass India recently. I gave North Korea as an example how South Korea was broke as fuck. Also why can't you compare? Before the collapse of the USSR North Korea was way more connected and dependent on trade. So, how it's invalid to compare how it was performong in the 1970s. Are you trolling or am I not writing it clear. Also what country? Unless you are like from Ukraine, Belarus or rural Russia, you are better of now, especially if you are young (if you were like in your 20s or older during the transiti, on period in the 1990s then that would have been rough).
It was not benevolent, it was in their self interest. Also it was not that hard, the size and number of said direct propped up colonies being small compared to USA. USSR was surely imperialistic, but not to the extent USA is. Also no, my eastern european country is not better now. Continued depopulation caused by capitalism will lead to it's extinction if capitalism is nor abolished. It's literally either capitalism or my people, both can't survive.
Underrated troll comment
>What about the fact (Pre Nazi Germany) was poor? (Just making the point authoritarianism has it place for short stretches :/ )
At least the soviets wanted to develop the economy, even if it was inefficient in the long run. The Nazis werent even that good. Their economy was going to crash if they didn't go to war.
Source: feels
Source: historical reality.
Is this another "North Korea is actually way better than South Korea" thread? That historical reality?
USSR has achieved the fastest 30 year transformation in history, China has achieved the highest sustained decades long economic growth on a large population in history.
Did they do that before or after large-scale market liberalization and privatization? They grew more in the first six years following 1980 than in the thirty years prior.
So for USSR you have no argument and for China you mention liberalization without the knowledge that the 50% portion of the chinese economy that is private is still de facto under direct party control. So we still have 100% government control over the economy. Incidentally That's pretty much similar to Japan even if they have a bigger private sector and no communist party, and that just goes to show asian countries have a preference for a certain kind of government totalitarianism. Hell in Japan "the collective" is even more treasured over the individual than in China.
>the 50% portion of the chinese economy that is private is still de facto under direct party control. lol how so?
Why is Huawei banned in USA again ?
That sounds awesome, I wish I could have lived in the USSR and not this capitalist hellhole. Sarcasm aside I don't understand how when prosperity increases under capitalism it's just a coincidence, but when the USSR and China drag their populations into the modern era a few decades and manmade famines later, it's proof of something good. You're comparing these systems to the horrors of capitalism. So how did the West do in this time? How did Hong Kong compare to the mainland? Did things improve in China after Dengist reforms or get worse? What about the SEZs? How about east vs west Germany, or north vs south Korea. The claim that any country "would have done even better" under socialism has all the logical and empirical weight of "utopia would be better than what we have now." We've had no shortage of collectivist revolutions like the one you're calling for yet again - why exactly has not a single one reached the quality of life capitalism produced decades ago, let alone eclipsed it? It's the answer to all of our problems, isn't it?
Where you'd want to live is good to know for your personal case, but over 50% of the people that lived under USSR know it was better for them. If a country starts from a poorer position even if it evolves faster it can still be behind after a certain period, so obviously a country with a worse system but that had a leg up can be preferred by some immigrants. But i question if you really want to go down the net migration rabbit hole and observe if the countries where most people migrate to per capita are really that great, and countries where most people migrate from per capita are really hellholes. Capitalism has taken longer to industrialize countries, so it's not a coincidence. "You're comparing these systems to the horrors of capitalism. So how did the West do in this time?" Started most wars and kill about 100 million people every few years. But their crimes are not talked about, only the crime their enemies did decades ago. That's propaganda in action. "why exactly has not a single one reached the quality of life capitalism produced decades ago" Because the revolutions happened in the poorest countries and have not had time to catch up. Relax, by 2100 China's dominance over USA will be obvious to everyone, as the fact that it's not capitalism. Sure it's not worker ownership, but government ownership, but it's a step in abolishing capitalism.
>Capitalism has taken longer to industrialize countries There's really little discussion to be had if someone just decides what the facts are, based on what they'd like them to be. >Because the revolutions happened in the poorest countries and have not had time to catch up. China just didn't have enough time to catch up with Hong Kong? North Korea started a few decades behind South? If we gave East Germany a few more years, we would have had to build another wall to keep the West Germans from fleeing there? I lived in Venezuela in its horrible capitalist phase, back when refugees from surrounding countries would flee *to* Venezuela. Which direction are things moving now? Just needs a little more time, and by 2100 they'll have to build a wall to keep the Americans out? > Relax, by 2100 China's dominance over USA will be obvious to everyone If the Chinese are doing everything better, you should spend a little time learning about their history. It's true their system is far from pure capitalism. Nor do the workers own the MoP. They did start far behind the US, and the west in general. And stayed there. For **decades**. Then some things started [changing](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china). And it wasn't this collective action you're calling for. The following decades saw a lot more reforms, and a lot more [growth](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomi-Ovaska/publication/337470147/figure/fig2/AS:828429905702912@1574524489372/Chinas-GDP-per-Capita-Since-1929-and-the-Era-of-Institutional-Reforms.png). Pretty impressive. But for scale, [here's](https://img.caixin.com/2018-08-16/1534410530322039.jpg) the US too, spiraling toward its late-stage capitalist demise. Is your theory that China will soon regress to a more socialistic economy, and then we'll *really* see things improve? Once they collectivize those silly Special Economic Zones, where nearly *all* of their wealth is created? Many socialists, including in this sub, do claim that China's capitalist reforms are just a temporary measure, a necessary step in a Marxist progression. China must first build wealth before it can truly realize socialism effectively. At least those socialists acknowledge some reality, that the way China grew that wealth was by abandoning much of its socialism. They weren't "ready" for it yet. For the sake of the Chinese, I hope they still aren't ready in 2100.
Sorry but I'm missed the argument. It all sounded like a rant
There are many arguments. Let me throw one at random "We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet" That didn't happen under communism in my country. This happens now under capitalism. Is it a good thing ?
Do you know what an argument is? Because that’s not one.
X bad thing happens because of capitalism is an argument against capitalism. Or you admit you think celebrating billionaires while teachers moonlight as drivers is a great thing ?
>"We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet" We who... Wtf u talking about? I see none of that... Care to use logic instead of your perspective of people around you? That is no argument. This is as stupid as people saying "*we pay Messi and Neymar a gazillion dollar while trash collection are paid nothing, therefore capitalism failed*". There is literally no cause and consequence better the first and the second half, even less so connection to capitalism. It is not an argument, and for that I don't even know why you are on this sub. Wasting your time online if you can't even make a coherent thought.
"There is literally no cause and consequence better the first and the second half, even less so connection to capitalism." Billionaires never existed under socialism in my country, so it sure as hell there is a connection to capitalism. And yes, the Neymar/trash collection argument is valid too in fact. The arguments are valid, you'd just hate for billionaires not to exist because then you wouldn't have who to worship.
>Billionaires never existed under socialism in my country They did. You being oblivious and ignorant is no argument. >so it sure as hell there is a connection to capitalism You **REALLY** can't grasp the difference between correlation and causation. You shouldn't be wasting your time on this sub. >And yes, the Neymar/trash collection argument is valid too in fact. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Name one romanian billionaire during the communist period 1950-1989 then mister non-ignorant. "can't grasp the difference between correlation and causation" Not all correlation is causation but all causation is correlation. Simple. Let me explain why socialism **causes** no billionaires. Because their wealth gets confiscated.
>Because their wealth gets confiscated. By who? If person X is a billionaire and person Y confiscated it, what does person Y become?
It gets confiscated by the state, not by another person.
Uhm... The government has no leader. Sure... It isn't nade of people, there isn't people controlling it.
A corporation has a leader, yet even 99% of the profits can go to the shareholders, not the leader. So why do you hate the wealth being more diffusely distributed to all the people and want it concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires ? Do you have a billionaire fetish ?
Teachers were billionaires under communism?
What happened is that teachers were better paid so they didn't have to moonlight as drivers, had more respect, authority, and there were no billionaires to celebrate. Good for teachers bad for billionaires. Feel free to retreat to your yacht to mourn for the 3000+ or so billionaires that exist on this planet. Only you can save them bankman !
“A campaign was led[by whom?] against schoolteachers of the old intelligentsia who were asserted to be working against the system and were even allowing priests to spiritually influence schoolchildren. Teachers accused of such could be fired, and in most cases the Soviet authorities imprisoned or exiled them. The antireligious press identified by name believers among the ranks of top Soviet scholars. This labeling led to the 1929–1930 purge of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, in which up to 100 scholars, their assistants and graduate students were arrested on forged charges and given sentences that ranged from three years of internal exile to the death penalty.” Nah, we are going to keep capitalism, seems to be a better system for teachers. Thanks for playing though. You are welcome to submit any other ideas. We just ask that you do more research in the future before submitting.
Your observance that the religious loyalist elements were purged from society at the beginning of communism changes nothing about what i previously said. But i take it you are a christian then since you seem to care so much ? :)
You cannot amend a previous denied option. You are however welcome to re-submit. We are always looking for the best and brightest ideas. We just feel that this one seemed to be reductive from our current progress. Thank you. -Capitalism
The funniest part is knowing tons of teachers that operated both under communism and capitalism (mostly because one of my close relatives being a teacher herself) and being lectured about my own people and country by a clueless foreigner.
Meanwhile capitalism has cured the top 3 most common cancers to the point that they have a 99% survival rate.
Also put us on track to end hunger by 2030
We had enough food for everyone for centuries, without capitalism world hunger would be ended by 1700 or so.
Except for the Great Leap Forward and the Holodormor
Even those two things that were made in a hurry therefore had victims were a success in eradicating hunger forever through agriculture industrialization. Now imagine what free market socialism would do. Certainly less victims than the 100 million people that die every few years because of capitalism.
Russia and the Ukraine were both massive food exporters before 1914, there was no hunger to eradicate there
If it's more profitable to export food to foreigners when your own people starve, that will get done under capitalism. It's easy enough to look at agricultural production 1920-1960 and see it increased orders of magnitude because of soviet industrialization. If capitalism remained the system, the agriculture would not industrialize and Russia would be basically like african agriculture even now.
Stalin was exporting food while his own people starved
So that must mean he was not the perfect example of socialism, and that doesn't change the fact that without the soviet industrialization russians would be starving even now.
>We had enough food for everyone for centuries, without capitalism world hunger would be ended by 1700 or so. You need to familiarize yourself with Malthusianism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism) The first part of your statement is **indisputably false**. Up until the last few centuries, we made enough food to feed ourselves but not much of a surplus. One or two bad harvests, or any other event which disrupted normal agricultural production, and lots of people starved and died. As a result of the industrial revolution (and you can make a strong argument that this was facilitated by capitialism), much of the world broke out of the Malthusian Trap, and food production grew exponentially for the first time in history. Of course, population growth has followed, but mostly in poor countries. Once population grows declines in these countries (as it has in rich countries), there should be far less famine in the world then there was in the past.
Klaus Schwab, is that you ? How's the bug eating ?
Cryptic reply.
That was prior to Covid from what I know. How much Covid set that back I haven't heard???
Also the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine were major agricultural exporters
Oh wow people don’t starve to death. When did we invent ships again?
We invented modern container ships in the 1950s. Why do you ask?
You're talking about the capitalism that asks, "is curing patients a sustainable business model?" *That* capitalism?
It is, if you or something you care about (God forbid) has cancer or some other formerly incurable disease.
elaborate?
Yippee...
You sure that wasnt science?
Ah capitalist personification, so droll. Capitalism did nothing, but the scientists slaving away under capitalism have been slowed enough by capitalism that it will probably only be 2100 when most cancers will be semi-curable, instead of early 1900s. Just 200 years of slowage, no biggie.
Cuba and China are curing cancer far faster and cheaper than your capitalist countries and China is advancing five times faster in space technology than the US.
The only area China is advancing in five times faster than the US is ageing.
https://www.space.com/china-space-progress-breathtaking-speed-space-force https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/usaf-general-steve-kwast-china-in-space-five-times-faster-than-us.html Not to mention, China is far superior to the US in housing, green energy, forestation, medicinal coverage, infrastructure and productive power. Let's see how you'll cope with this one.
Probably by cracking open a cold beer when I see the footage of Beijing burning on my reddit thread. It's too bad their population is on a terminal decline from an ageing epidemic and the youth are lying flat to leverage all that progress created by capitalism. I wonder how many Africans they'll have to import to do all of that for them, but then again that wouldn't be very Marxist. I'm sure you're happy that China is a hypercapitalist dystopia with horrible labour conditions and worker's rights, campist that you are.
This is the pitifulness of a Western chauvinist watching nothing but anti-China grifters and giving slight glances (they cannot spend more than 10 minutes to read) at Western tabloid articles. Beijing is far superior than any Western city and they have at least 5 cities just as powerful and advanced. The Chinese population is doing what any industrial country does. Japan has been struggling with this for decades. Yet it won't stop China. You morons have been saying they were doomed since 2008 yet it always subverted your expectations. Your entire ideology is coping. I have given you facts and all you could do was foam at the mouth like the dog of the US you are and claim shit without giving any sources. Immigration is non Marxist now hurray! Another bullshit flown right out of a racists ass finding it's place in political discussions. China is one of the happiest countries in the world, number 1 in 2023, with the highest democracy perception index and a 90% government satisfaction score. The US has half of it's people on anti-depressants and 1/8th of it's households in food insecurity. Suicide rate is far higher than Chinas and the government has a 16% trust score compared to China's 80%. Not surprising since the US has been brutalizing it's people since it's inception as even today police beats up people for standing up against literal genocide the country is responsible for. I'm going to block you because speaking with fascist minded "people" like you is just a waste of time. But for hilarity's sake I'll wait for one more reply from you so I can dunk on you further.
Not reading that lol, cry about it you impotent campist clown. If anyone's a fascist, it's the person that simps for China, a fascist, ultra nationalist regime.
Yeah I told you that you couldn't read 😂 Watch in your stupid box how the Red Dragon Rising destroys your world.
Conditional convergence.
Nice cope.
Why are so many of these posts written like pamphlets. There's no argument being made, just assertions. You say it's finally time for something new, "collective action", as if this isn't a very old idea, with a *very* questionable history. Since you're convinced you'll do it better now, make *that* argument at least. Explain how your socialism will avoid the pitfalls of past socialism. Address *some* tiny fraction of the centuries of discussion, research, evidence on this topic instead of just saying "why aren't we doing socialism yet, it's obviously better."
The US is socialist- we subsidize the downside of the business cycle. Laws protect the wealthy through LLCs and tax structures. The FED bails out failed businesses through quantitative easing and monetary policy with an eye corporate wellbeing. The working class be damned. OP is ineloquently saying, "let's restructure the socialism the US does to benefit the people"
Capitalists here don't deserve better.
"I am right because I said so!!111!11!1!" ahh logic
It's seriously embarrassing how terminally online you are. All you do is just post pretentious, substanceless drivel and pretend that you're an intellectual. I bet this all sounded better in your demented head.
The reactions to this post shows me i scratched the right spots.
Not really, you said nothing.
A farmer had two sons. He went to the eldest and said “go out and work in the fields.” But his eldest said “I am busy.” However, soon the son felt guilty and went to do what his father had said. Meanwhile the father went to the younger son and said “go out and work in the fields.” The younger son said “Of course” but did not go. Now who actually did what his father asked? You see in that story the eldest son is capitalism has drastically improved the lives of billions of people despite claiming to regard greed as a virtue and communism is the younger son which produced the holodomor despite claiming to be about selflessness
The eldest son is the worker class that through work has improved the lives of billions. The younger son that said "of course" is the capitalist class, they did not go because they were too busy holding hooker parties on yachts, but pretended they work. By their works you shall know them. What percentage of your income do you give yearly to the poor ?
I am currently unemployed. What do you do for a living?
Being unemployed doesn't mean you don't have an yearly income. So what percentage of your income do you give yearly to the poor ? I work in the medical research field.
10%. Not exactly working class huh?
Yes, since you have an income and you are not employed it must mean you get 100% of your income by passive means and you are a capitalist. I am working class because most of my income comes from wage labor.
Would Pol Pot agree?
Dunno. But blowing up the central bank was a good move, if every leader did that the world would be a better place.
I don’t think it’s that simple bro the real analogy would be some random from town taking over the farm and your neighbouring country tanking your economy, forcing you to starve and then banning you from leaving. Your older brother would instead inherit the farm, your country profits economically from their geopolitical isolation and top military expenditure, then he goes and hires a bunch of minimum wage workers, never increases their pay, and scales it to buggery.
Have you ever heard of a book called The Bible? That’s a story from that
Why can't you interpret my comment with charity like ya'll do with irrelevant stories from the bible.
Are you REALLY misusing a half remembered passage from the Bible to advocate for an economic system that didn't exist when the Bible was written?
I’m more making a point about the moral grandstanding communists so often partake in
Says the man who grounds his morality in a book that condones slavery.
John Brown would beg to differ
[https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/Ealy\_Slave\_Bible](https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/Ealy_Slave_Bible) This ever existing would beg to differ. John Brown is commendable, but he is an an aberration compared to his contemporaries. Your religion explicitly condoned and was used to morally permit slaves, regardless of any other modern interpretation, or individual like John Brown, this did happen in the name of your God. Figures that an ideology that can only attempt to be relevant today through picking and choosing favorable passages and absolutely lying about the unfavorable ones would attract revisionist historians and logically fallacious interlocutors.
You are attempting to argue that my religion is ok with slavery by citing an article about how slave owners wouldn’t let their slaves read the whole bible. Wouldn’t that source demonstrate that the Bible is naturally an anti slavery document?
The slave bible was edited to remove any of the self determination or freedom and leave the passages about slaves obeying their masters. You can't just interpret that to be the opposite. so like, REMOVING: >Galatians 5:1 ESV For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. >Colossians 4:1 ESV Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. But KEEPING: >Titus 2:9-10 ESV Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. >Ephesians 6:5 ESV Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, How about the passages that explicitly outline the rules of owning slaves: >Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. >Exodus 21:20-21 ESV When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. If you can't comprehend your own book, why are you arguing with me about its contents? If you can't be bothered to read the article I sent, why are you assuming it supports your argument? EDIT: This is LITERALLY the third paragraph of the article I sent: >for the same owners “hoped to shield their slaves from the liberating aspects of literacy.” One way to do so was not to teach them to write—reading allowed for the nurture of their souls, “but teaching them to write would threaten the social order.” A second way was to **limit the parts of the Bible made available** to literate enslaved people.
The problem with these types of posts is that they usually take an ideal society that can never be achieved (whether Socialist or not) as a reference and then compare real-world Capitalism with it. I don't think that's a fair comparison to make. Either we compare ideal Capitalism against its ideal alternatives or real-world Capitalism against its real-world alternatives
No, a society with no billionaires, better paid teachers, more equality is not "ideal", it already existed.
Having better paid teachers won't mean much if there's nothing on the shelves to buy with all the extra pay (like it was common in those societies that already existed)
“Citation needed”
Go outside.
Before it gets buried, I'd like to say I really don't think the problems you're pointing out are exclusive to capitalism, not even caused by it, but by poor leadership and those in power abusing it to stay in power. I think failed "socialist/communist" governments all have that in common - they were all pretty much dictatorships and I think it could be argued that, at least in the US, we have an oligarchy of sorts that perverts capitalism. Trying to make money is not a capitalist mindset, trying to make a quality product/service and using generated income to gauge success is a capitalist mindset. The mindset you described is a sociopathic one, and that's where the problem lies; we don't do enough to weed psychopaths out of positions of power. If everyone wanted what was best for everyone else, I don't think our type of economic system would matter. I guess what I'm getting at is, it's really the people that are the problem in all of this.
Yes, the people are the problem. They are not good enough for capitalism. Read the first part of this [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough)
Damn not sure how capitalism will ever come back from this one lmao
By ignoring it, because sociopaths don't really give a damn about the pain and suffering of others or fixing systemic problems and improving the system. Right now top rich elites like CEOS are about 20% sociopaths vs 1% in the general population, the process can continue till 100% is reached and all normal people are eliminated from positions of power. So capitalism can survive fine even with my critique. It's only socialist action that can stop it.
But socialists don't do any actions Sorry reddit posting doesn't count lmao
Yeah that's literally all i do all day, post on reddit.
And look where that's gotten socialism...nowhere
Yes, yes we know, history has ended, the neoliberal world order is eternal, Fukushima was right and capitalism has beaten entropy.
Tell that to Steve Huffman CEO of reddit and his 190 million dollar salary lmao!
You'd have a point, if socialism had ever produced anything better, but since it hasn't, go away. It's easy to criticize a thing as not perfect, but socialism is even worse.
It has.
No it hasn't. Let me quote every socialist ever "wasn't real socialism". Even if you had one or two examples of so called good socialism, which you don't, the fact that socialism going bad results in North Korea, USSR, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot and a few dozen other catastrophes on a global scale means it's fundamentally flawed.
Early christian communities and the USSR were both better than capitalism for most people. They'd not be good for you if you are a parasite exploiter who wants to get rich from the work of others tho.
Whole lot of vibes here!
Come on, do a double backflip with 4/2 turn.
ok. lets assume what you are saying is true. What's the alternative? We know that it can't be socialism because that performed even worse.
If it performed worse why do over 50% of the people who lived in the USSR say it was better then ? Since then we learned more, so i expect the next socialist experiment to have an even higher approval rating. What you can say it performed worse for billionaires. Bo hoo.
if it performed better why did it collapse?
I dont think it's just that Capitalism is blanket statement immoral, it's just that it's what has worked so far, even if it has the possibility to end up being exploitative. I mean communism and some forms of socialism can be exploitative in a similar vein in that pure socialism requires people to work for little or no material compensation. Ideally people in a socialist system would just be given everything they need to thrive by the state, and they'd just work without being tied to material compensation. Under the wrong circumstances (where the state cant or wont give the populace what they need to thrive) that could be and has been catastrophic (though to be fair it would be catastrophic in any society) In a post-scarcity world socialism would likely be fine, and honestly, capitalism wouldnt make sense in such a world...but this isnt a post scarcity world. Let me use the example of food scarcity: Much has been said about how some countries could feed the entire world, but if we only rely on a single country to do that, such a thing wouldnt be sustainable. Secondly, as long as opposition forces exist, feeding the world would not be accepted. If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union TECHNICALLY had the farmland to feed the world, but they either didnt or wouldn't. America TECHNICALLY has the farmland to do that, but they wont or cant. China Technically has the farmland to do the same thing, but they wont or cant. Maybe it's because these places were/are selfish and vindictive which is probably true in some capacity, but I think the greater truth is that feeding the world is intensely difficult and a logistical nightmare at present. This is regardless of whether a country is run by a "dirty commie" or a "capitalist pig". Anyway, I think my point is that maintaining stability is "easier said than done". Socialism has promising theory behind it, but it can just as easily fall prey to the same problems that capitalism does... capitalists response to your post would basically just be: "why should I be socialist if it has the same issues capitalism does, on top of that, socialists hate me and want to kill me?". Like, theres literally no incentive there???
We already live in a post food scarcity world, we have food for 10 billions. Even in a post-scarcity world as long as we have capitalism we will suffer. Also history has proven that even imperfect systems like the USSR did not have the same issues as capitalism does.
Capitalism is for working population. Socialism is for poor population. Both should exist. Period.
Ah yes, "workers of the world unite", the famous capitalist slogan.
Yup. No one can escape with the laziness in Capitalism. Either work and provide some mental or physical value. If you're unable to, that's where governments step in. That's where welfare organisations step in.
they’re just gonna say “it’s the governments fault” for all of that and dip 😂
Let’s suppose you’re 100% right about your critique of capitalism. You still haven’t proposed an alternative. Your “very visible fist of collective action” - is vague and imprecise, and also alludes to things that certainly have been tried before and very clearly and visibly failed.
Capitalism is a form of collective action, coordinated with prices and property rights. Most of the problems that people see with capitalism have been ameliorated with the welfare state, and there's no reason to think the welfare state can't / won't expand indefinitely, as we decide more and more things are human rights (e.g. first elementary school, then high school, now college). The reality is that most of the new, high paying jobs in capitalism are created by small companies becoming large. Tech companies created hundreds of thousands of high paying software jobs from nothing. And granted they also require a lot of "low skill" jobs, but these are at worst parallels to jobs that already existed. Instead of working for a warehouse for Sears, you work for a warehouse for Amazon. Over time these small gains accumulate such that the median household income in the US is up to \~$80k, compared to maybe $10-20k in 1900, when households were much larger.
Necro11111 requires medical attention, their brainrot reached its final stage.
Any [capitalists] post is useless I think because it just gets drowned in a sea of "vivuzela", "holmordor", "Commies killed billions", "muh HDI" or "communism is when the government does stuff". What we have to understand is that these people do not come for a debate or to engage in good faith. They just come here and used the same overdone bullshit arguments like "He-man Natur" or "Lol no Food". This post has just been posturing honestly, it's kind of bad, but these chuds honestly don't deserve any better and most of their posts are the same anyway. This sub just became a schoolyard fight club where people flail around angrily, throwing insults at one another.
Fight fire with fire.