Comments 1 - 40 of 64 Next » Last » Search these comments
Socialism is fine and well, and as our society has grown more prosperous (through capitalism), more and more of our daily necessities have been socialized. We have roads, schools, water, energy, public works, food security (SNAP) and are working towards things like medicine and housing.
i simply don't believe that people don't have "400". it seems far fetched.
In the past decades the US has seen wave after wave of deregulation.Heraclitusstudent says
Corporate lobbyists are buying laws.
Before capitalism, people could not come up with food on hand. Every day was hunt and gather or starve.
homosexual....
lgbt....
i simply don't believe that people don't have "400".
This means the system is not stable. It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity.
Yes, I like capitalism. Capitalism created enormous wealth. I'm not forgetting that.
I just see that the objective function is getting rogue and away from humanity.
PeopleUnited saysWealth can also be stolen
... by moving it offshore until American inequality moves towards a society of gulags and resorts with not much in between.
You see this in a lot of Latin American countries already.
Shareholders can be the sole beneficiaries of a fascist tyranny while the rest toil at gunpoint. No?
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny?
Capitalism does not work well under slavery. Free people who are allowed to keep most of the fruits of their labor will always outproduce a gaggle of slaves. Without freedom, slaves produce wealth for those in power (like Castro, Bresnev, Kim), and these slaves produce as little as they can and still avoid the lash.
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Does anyone see Capitalism weakening in any way at all?
There already seems to be clear delineators that separate shareholders from suffering the fates of those dependent on wages, many of whom are living like refugees.
I want to agree with you but capitalism doesn't create wealth.PeopleUnited says
They can be motivated to work by various mean such as the profit motive in the United States or the threat of violence/starvation as in North Korea but in either circumstance both systems are generating wealth.
You can consider the absolutely INCREDIBLE advances humanity as a WHOLE has experienced, how an average worker in middle class America has more choices for luxury and medicine than Louis XIV, and you can conclude that human work has moved HUMANITY forward! Sure, the elites maintain an edge over the average man, and they still call the shots for the most part. But the improvements our combined work has wrought upon the land are enjoyed by all of us!
Capitalism is built on debt & fiat currency.
Global debt $233 trillion, better start printing.
Capitalism creates such a level of efficiency as to make a large part of humanity useless.
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.
It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.
Capitalism can go on thriving right? Why not? What would stop it from becoming more powerful?
It's not like these people couldn't work and produce wealth. It is that mere humans can't do it efficiently enough to be competitive with robots.
The idea that socialism would take better care of the "weaker" and more retarded is proven false everywhere it's been tried.
Homo Sapiens would not have emerged if not for the earlier and more primitive life forms and species having died off all along the direct path leading to humanity!
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Shareholders can be the sole beneficiaries of a fascist tyranny while the rest toil at gunpoint. No?
Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.
I'm not saying socialism is better. I don't think it is. You are completely missing the point. I'm saying capitalism is dying.
Evolution works, but a society is not a Darwinian experiment. Poor people do not die. If starving they eventually rise up and kill rich people.
Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").
Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.
Reality saysCapitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.
That worked when most people could play a useful role in a society. This doesn't work when poor people have no useful skills to offer, don't have land to produce food, don't have land to build a shelter, and basically are left out with time stamps, and pooping between cars on the street.
there is always a place for human effort, and automation won’t eliminate that anytime soon. If it did, perhaps more things could be socialized to the point where nobody would need to work to provide basic necessities. But, those who DID choose to work would be rewarded with the first pick of every luxury and status symbol. I’d guess that’s our end point.
Reality saysSociety is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").
Evolution of human ideas has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Poor people now reproduce at a much faster rate than rich people.
Thus society is by definition not Darwinian evolution.
And when upheaval happens, more poor people may die but not in the same proportion as rich people. The French or Russian revolution decimated the aristocracy. To say that Robespierre or Lenin were not poor is missing the point. Of course they were smart enough to elevate themselves, but they were not aristocrats, nor rich.
Reality saysEvery episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.
Ok, let's not try to engineer anything. Let us let capitalism die and collapse from its own weight in the process I described.
Like I care.
If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.
Reality saysIf / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.
So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.
Don't worry, the power-that-be will put everyone on welfare, and keep for themselves the opulent fruits technocracy.
But of course Reality will still be preaching capitalism long after capitalists around the world have fled it and it has ceased to exist.
So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.
Comments 1 - 40 of 64 Next » Last » Search these comments
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.
The incentive of capitalism are clear: workers are a cost to be eliminated. And companies have become extremely good at this game. Unfortunately, having customers is also a requirement for capitalism. And customers normally get their cash from wages. This means the system is not stable. It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.
So you see the hollowing of the economy, you see the shrinking opportunities and social mobility, the rise of economic frailties and poverty, the rise of debts to compensate the dearth of incomes. All these are not the results of social programs, or socialism. Instead they are the natural results of capitalism gone wild at a global level.
And it won't stop there:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/global-sales-of-industrial-robots-log-staggering-rise/
"New data confirms anecdotal reports of the blistering hot global automation industry."
"The biggest growth came from China, where sales rose 58 percent."
Ironically the only way capitalism could endure is precisely through more social programs, and a better safety net.
A heavy dose of socialism is the only way to entrench capitalism. Without that, capitalism as a whole is probably doomed.
Suck it up right wingers.