Capitalist economies are not sustainable. That’s kind of their point: Line goes up, even though resources are finite (which economists conveniently ignore). Hence, they can’t be sustained ad infinitum. We’re all borrowing/stealing from somewhere, including from nature. (And the harder we believe in capitalism, the faster humanity will crash because resources are getting used up.)
Ultimately, money is a means to an end anyway: Making sure society functions well enough that everyone has food and shelter. Other than that, it’s just imaginary figures.
Hmm I want to see your point . Trying really hard, but: have you lived in an absolutely corrupt society like Argentina? Then, have you thought about “line goes up” is not only material resources, but any idea, tech product, or sustainable product, can make it also go up ? Also… amount of people… on top of that… our precious “socialist” govt was not pushing for anything sustainable… only filling their pockets while claiming to be helping people, making people less educated on purpose, so they cannot survive without a “present state”. I’m not religious but I like holding cliches as axioms, and one I really like is: teach a man how to fish…
If I extrapolate your train of thought to the maximum, basically we should all commit suicide as to not deplete earths resources.
So, what is exactly your point if you do not mind rephrasing it? What is good vs bad in your terms? I love sustainability, small communal govts where corruption can be refereed and prevented , not a humongous federal beast where “one rule fits all” ensures life will never be in the best interest of the people. But please, put yourself in the shoes of reality. It’s not capitalism vs something else . If it were for me, I’d live in anarchy, but that also presents some other troubles. We all want what we believe it’s best for humanity as a whole, we just focus or see different solutions or advantages first . Or some pro vs con weigh differently on different people. I do not stand by any politician, I find that good can be done outside of state , and taxes to be a form of accepted feudalism . I do not believe capitalism to be inherently evil and doomed to fail; I believe all systems can be used for the good, if we leave greed aside, and I also do not think that capitalism==greed. It’s like saying guns kill people, when people kill people. It’s a cultural and mindset shift that needs to happen, not necessarily the system is forcing it on anyone . We can disagree and be fine. But I’d like to try and understand your point.
“That’s all well and good, but what about one of the worst examples of it?”
You are never going to understand their point because you seem to have no desire to actually take any of this conversation seriously.
Capitalism was literally designed to continue the powers of a monarchy when it was obvious that people were revolting and that’s literally in the texts, it’s history. Much more regulated and “people first” societies exist, largely in Europe, and they thrive but you’re ignoring, that, too.
I’m sorry but I’ve tried the opposite. I feel that I replied with honesty, while your reply sounds like something you have already premade in your head.
Name those European societies, I only see a bit less corruption (or just a bit more effort in hiding it), and also see a lot of “one rule fits all”. I’ve just been to Sweden and Norway, and different types of citizens have different types of complaints about it, and in no way shape or form they live sustainably. They also have a lot of issues regarding incorporating all the immigrants into their society. Where is this “socialist haven” you are talking about?
“Honesty”? Well maybe that’s step one: understand why those arguments you’ve been fed are disingenuous and not valid.
Those countries are, by and large, much happier than us in North America. They don’t experience nearly the levels of mass poverty that countries focused on money over citizens do, and if it weren’t for the death throes of capitalism injecting intense amounts of rightwing propoganda into the world right now they’d be even better off. Nearly half of America is below the official poverty line and many of the rest don’t realize how bad they have it because that line doesn’t move as quickly as it should.
They have safety nets for people in a bund and support structures for everyone. In the U.S. people need to refuse ambulances because they cost too much. Police kill people at an insane rate here, even in Canada, and while they are far from perfect in Europe they are at least not killing their citizens in the fucking street and in their homes. They have more green initiatives and they work together, using the EU, to push for real and important changes that capitalism does nothing to address. As the rightwing gets more and more extreme we do see more and more issues, of course, as the whole MO of those governments is to break down the government’s ability to function such that it can replaced by private business(although they’re also enjoying using the power to restrict the freedoms of minority groups such as the immigrants you mentioned).
Yes, it is not perfect, but if we’re arguing about that vs capitalism it’s a no-contest. Capitalism doesn’t even pretend to care about people, only keeping money, and therefore power, in the hands of those who least deserve it. That’s the whole game, and it’s awful for everyone.
Oh, and Venezuela? Yea, the CIA, in order to push the U.S.’s fucked up capitalist garbage, is constantly meddling in South America’s business. To “protect American interests” they’ve funded literal death squads for crying out loud.
If you want to talk about anarchy or adjacent options, those will just devolve into a completely unregulated disaster. There’s a reason we have government and arachists are just too fucking lazy to build something that works so they just want to destroy things that aren’t 100% perfect.
Your point is not very coherent, I’m struggling to understand you due to how much you’ve written and the lack of formatting.
Some brief things to pick out:
Corruption is not just a socialist thing it’s everywhere. India has huge corruption problems and is capitalist.
Taxes are not ‘accepted feudalism’ they are the basis of communal living. Even anarcho-capitalists recognise the need for roads and farming subsidies.
You’re right that good can be done in any system but the idea of all of this is to find a system that encourages good and discourages greed. If we could rely only on everyone just deciding to be good there would be no need for any politics. You’ll notice this has never happened in millions of years of human existence.
corruption is a power difference thing — the system is not the problem, but socialist governments want more power over more things (more power difference, easier access to corruption ); again : this is just my opinion and we should respect our disagreements instead of downvoting :( I thought Lemmy was an inclusive place .
farms should not be subsidized IMHO, maybe give farmers interest free loans instead
roads can be mantained and paid for by private parties, what’s wrong with a dirt road? Let’s build trains instead .
Thanks for the formatting, helps me a lot. I’ll do my best to have the discussion you want.
If it’s your opinion it’s your opinion. I don’t think that ‘wanting more power over more things’ is something inherent to socialism. All governments take power over things when they think it’s necessary. A particularly controversial example would be abortion restrictions. That is an extreme intrusion by a government into the literal organs of its citizens but to a religious capitalist it makes sense. Need more workers and more consumers after all.
I don’t see that there’s any meaningful difference between an interest free loan and a subsidy. Say the farmers don’t pay up and ask for another loan, are you gonna starve on principle?
Lots is wrong with dirt roads, they’re just inefficient. So much money and resource spent on fixing and maintaining vehicle suspensions and the extra time needed to go slowly which is all unnecessary with a proper road. I love trains but they can’t do everything, we’re not running tracks to every home in order for the mail train to come deliver your package etc.
As for private parties, this is also just the least efficient way to do things. Roads need to be compatible with each other, have the same spacings the same areas for communal services like electricity water and gas and so on. Who’s gonna enforce all that with no profit motive? It would have to be a government entity, at which point the government might as well just build the roads in the first place and charge everyone a general usage fee, but since it’s a government this is called ‘Road tax’ and is already implemented in most European countries. This isn’t even socialism it’s just the basics of what governments are for: taking care of ‘societal chores’.
Not who you replied to, but there is a massive misconception here that must be addressed.
Socialist governments shift power from unaccountable, anti-democratic Capitalists to a more democratically accountable state. This is not an “easier access to corruption,” but a removal of that which corruption was assumed as a given. Additionally, by rejecting the profit motive, you remove lobbying and other methods by which the wealthy shape and shift the state, corruption itself is minimized.
Your assumption that Capitalists are somehow not corrupt when exploitation is a requirement for there to be a Capitalist is the key issue here.
Gracias broder, solo los que vieron la corrupción y el sufrimiento de primera mano podemos hablar con honestidad, el resto son opinólogos; izquierda caviar.
Venezuela fue siempre pobre, solo mejoro durante el gobierno de Chaves por que el petróleo estava a 100 dólares el barril, pero antes y después de eso no había tanta diferencia. Por lo menos esa fue siempre la visión que tuve desde Colombia. Y Colombia tampoco es que sea mejor, y siempre tuvo gobiernos de derecha y ultra derecha y es pobre y corrupto. Entonces decir derecha bien izquierda mal no tiene mucho sentido viéndolo así no más.
En Venezuela siempre ha habido muchísima pobreza, que es bien distinto a decir que siempre ha sido pobre.
Venezuela ha tenido momentos de bonanza económica en los que gente todas las clases económicas ha podido prosperar. Momentos en los que ha habido cierta clase media.
Efectivamente, los altos precios del petróleo no solo permitieron a la élite chavista enriquecerse, sino también poner en marcha varios programas sociales (obviamente, demandando lealtad al proceso) y comprar lealtades en el exterior regalando petróleo. Después de la caida de los precios del petróleo y la destrucción de PDVSA, ya esto no fue posible.
Pero si lo que quieres decir es que con o sin régimen chavista Venezuela sería pobre igualmente, creo que te equivocas. La miseria ha empujado a millones de Venezolanos al exterior como no había precedentes en su historia. Y fuera de la situación económica, la represión política también es una realidad.
Venezuela estaría mejor sin el régimen. Lo de que sea de izquierdas es casi accesorio.
Los ejes de izquiera y derecha son una simplificación. Hay muchas más dimensiones en las situar un movimiento político. Hay que ir a lo concreto.
Capitalist economies are not sustainable. That’s kind of their point: Line goes up, even though resources are finite (which economists conveniently ignore). Hence, they can’t be sustained ad infinitum. We’re all borrowing/stealing from somewhere, including from nature. (And the harder we believe in capitalism, the faster humanity will crash because resources are getting used up.)
Ultimately, money is a means to an end anyway: Making sure society functions well enough that everyone has food and shelter. Other than that, it’s just imaginary figures.
This is why Russia wants Ukraine and why China wants Taiwan.
Hmm I want to see your point . Trying really hard, but: have you lived in an absolutely corrupt society like Argentina? Then, have you thought about “line goes up” is not only material resources, but any idea, tech product, or sustainable product, can make it also go up ? Also… amount of people… on top of that… our precious “socialist” govt was not pushing for anything sustainable… only filling their pockets while claiming to be helping people, making people less educated on purpose, so they cannot survive without a “present state”. I’m not religious but I like holding cliches as axioms, and one I really like is: teach a man how to fish… If I extrapolate your train of thought to the maximum, basically we should all commit suicide as to not deplete earths resources. So, what is exactly your point if you do not mind rephrasing it? What is good vs bad in your terms? I love sustainability, small communal govts where corruption can be refereed and prevented , not a humongous federal beast where “one rule fits all” ensures life will never be in the best interest of the people. But please, put yourself in the shoes of reality. It’s not capitalism vs something else . If it were for me, I’d live in anarchy, but that also presents some other troubles. We all want what we believe it’s best for humanity as a whole, we just focus or see different solutions or advantages first . Or some pro vs con weigh differently on different people. I do not stand by any politician, I find that good can be done outside of state , and taxes to be a form of accepted feudalism . I do not believe capitalism to be inherently evil and doomed to fail; I believe all systems can be used for the good, if we leave greed aside, and I also do not think that capitalism==greed. It’s like saying guns kill people, when people kill people. It’s a cultural and mindset shift that needs to happen, not necessarily the system is forcing it on anyone . We can disagree and be fine. But I’d like to try and understand your point.
“That’s all well and good, but what about one of the worst examples of it?”
You are never going to understand their point because you seem to have no desire to actually take any of this conversation seriously.
Capitalism was literally designed to continue the powers of a monarchy when it was obvious that people were revolting and that’s literally in the texts, it’s history. Much more regulated and “people first” societies exist, largely in Europe, and they thrive but you’re ignoring, that, too.
I’m sorry but I’ve tried the opposite. I feel that I replied with honesty, while your reply sounds like something you have already premade in your head. Name those European societies, I only see a bit less corruption (or just a bit more effort in hiding it), and also see a lot of “one rule fits all”. I’ve just been to Sweden and Norway, and different types of citizens have different types of complaints about it, and in no way shape or form they live sustainably. They also have a lot of issues regarding incorporating all the immigrants into their society. Where is this “socialist haven” you are talking about?
“Honesty”? Well maybe that’s step one: understand why those arguments you’ve been fed are disingenuous and not valid.
Those countries are, by and large, much happier than us in North America. They don’t experience nearly the levels of mass poverty that countries focused on money over citizens do, and if it weren’t for the death throes of capitalism injecting intense amounts of rightwing propoganda into the world right now they’d be even better off. Nearly half of America is below the official poverty line and many of the rest don’t realize how bad they have it because that line doesn’t move as quickly as it should.
They have safety nets for people in a bund and support structures for everyone. In the U.S. people need to refuse ambulances because they cost too much. Police kill people at an insane rate here, even in Canada, and while they are far from perfect in Europe they are at least not killing their citizens in the fucking street and in their homes. They have more green initiatives and they work together, using the EU, to push for real and important changes that capitalism does nothing to address. As the rightwing gets more and more extreme we do see more and more issues, of course, as the whole MO of those governments is to break down the government’s ability to function such that it can replaced by private business(although they’re also enjoying using the power to restrict the freedoms of minority groups such as the immigrants you mentioned).
Yes, it is not perfect, but if we’re arguing about that vs capitalism it’s a no-contest. Capitalism doesn’t even pretend to care about people, only keeping money, and therefore power, in the hands of those who least deserve it. That’s the whole game, and it’s awful for everyone.
Oh, and Venezuela? Yea, the CIA, in order to push the U.S.’s fucked up capitalist garbage, is constantly meddling in South America’s business. To “protect American interests” they’ve funded literal death squads for crying out loud.
If you want to talk about anarchy or adjacent options, those will just devolve into a completely unregulated disaster. There’s a reason we have government and arachists are just too fucking lazy to build something that works so they just want to destroy things that aren’t 100% perfect.
Norway. Finland. Iceland. Sweden. Portugal. Spain. France. Germany. etc.
deleted by creator
Your point is not very coherent, I’m struggling to understand you due to how much you’ve written and the lack of formatting.
Some brief things to pick out:
Corruption is not just a socialist thing it’s everywhere. India has huge corruption problems and is capitalist.
Taxes are not ‘accepted feudalism’ they are the basis of communal living. Even anarcho-capitalists recognise the need for roads and farming subsidies.
You’re right that good can be done in any system but the idea of all of this is to find a system that encourages good and discourages greed. If we could rely only on everyone just deciding to be good there would be no need for any politics. You’ll notice this has never happened in millions of years of human existence.
Thanks for the formatting, helps me a lot. I’ll do my best to have the discussion you want.
If it’s your opinion it’s your opinion. I don’t think that ‘wanting more power over more things’ is something inherent to socialism. All governments take power over things when they think it’s necessary. A particularly controversial example would be abortion restrictions. That is an extreme intrusion by a government into the literal organs of its citizens but to a religious capitalist it makes sense. Need more workers and more consumers after all.
I don’t see that there’s any meaningful difference between an interest free loan and a subsidy. Say the farmers don’t pay up and ask for another loan, are you gonna starve on principle?
Lots is wrong with dirt roads, they’re just inefficient. So much money and resource spent on fixing and maintaining vehicle suspensions and the extra time needed to go slowly which is all unnecessary with a proper road. I love trains but they can’t do everything, we’re not running tracks to every home in order for the mail train to come deliver your package etc.
As for private parties, this is also just the least efficient way to do things. Roads need to be compatible with each other, have the same spacings the same areas for communal services like electricity water and gas and so on. Who’s gonna enforce all that with no profit motive? It would have to be a government entity, at which point the government might as well just build the roads in the first place and charge everyone a general usage fee, but since it’s a government this is called ‘Road tax’ and is already implemented in most European countries. This isn’t even socialism it’s just the basics of what governments are for: taking care of ‘societal chores’.
Not who you replied to, but there is a massive misconception here that must be addressed.
Socialist governments shift power from unaccountable, anti-democratic Capitalists to a more democratically accountable state. This is not an “easier access to corruption,” but a removal of that which corruption was assumed as a given. Additionally, by rejecting the profit motive, you remove lobbying and other methods by which the wealthy shape and shift the state, corruption itself is minimized.
Your assumption that Capitalists are somehow not corrupt when exploitation is a requirement for there to be a Capitalist is the key issue here.
Me importan bien poco las críticas de la izquierda del primer mundo.
No sé si las cosas mejoren con Milei, pero como venezolano, deseo para los Argentinos el país que merecen.
Gracias broder, solo los que vieron la corrupción y el sufrimiento de primera mano podemos hablar con honestidad, el resto son opinólogos; izquierda caviar.
Venezuela fue siempre pobre, solo mejoro durante el gobierno de Chaves por que el petróleo estava a 100 dólares el barril, pero antes y después de eso no había tanta diferencia. Por lo menos esa fue siempre la visión que tuve desde Colombia. Y Colombia tampoco es que sea mejor, y siempre tuvo gobiernos de derecha y ultra derecha y es pobre y corrupto. Entonces decir derecha bien izquierda mal no tiene mucho sentido viéndolo así no más.
En Venezuela siempre ha habido muchísima pobreza, que es bien distinto a decir que siempre ha sido pobre.
Venezuela ha tenido momentos de bonanza económica en los que gente todas las clases económicas ha podido prosperar. Momentos en los que ha habido cierta clase media.
Efectivamente, los altos precios del petróleo no solo permitieron a la élite chavista enriquecerse, sino también poner en marcha varios programas sociales (obviamente, demandando lealtad al proceso) y comprar lealtades en el exterior regalando petróleo. Después de la caida de los precios del petróleo y la destrucción de PDVSA, ya esto no fue posible.
Pero si lo que quieres decir es que con o sin régimen chavista Venezuela sería pobre igualmente, creo que te equivocas. La miseria ha empujado a millones de Venezolanos al exterior como no había precedentes en su historia. Y fuera de la situación económica, la represión política también es una realidad.
Venezuela estaría mejor sin el régimen. Lo de que sea de izquierdas es casi accesorio.
Los ejes de izquiera y derecha son una simplificación. Hay muchas más dimensiones en las situar un movimiento político. Hay que ir a lo concreto.