Glad the Socialism/Anti-Capitalism trend is dying down

[Vandelay]

I don't think you can have pure capitalism or pure socialism. You need to find a way to take the best elements of both. And there are good elements to both.

I think as much as some of the posters in here rail against capitalism, I think we can agree what the US has isn't pure capitalism.

I think to determine the benefits and negatives of both, people need to willing to have an honest conversation about both which neither side seems willing to do.

Capitalism does create social and racial inequalities given the right circumstances.

On the converse, Capitalism creates innovation and has raised the standard of living unlike any other economic system in history.

Socialism creates a more egalitarian society.

Socialism also has the potential to inhibit productivity.

I've said it before on here, you will never have people agree to a system where there is an equal division of resources, but an unequal division of productivity. It will never happen.

The Scandinavian model seems ideal to me, but those countries are largely homogenized ethnically. The US has a fukked up history on race, so I would hope we could put a similar model in place, but in this current climate its unlikely.

 

[JamesJabdi]

capitalism has proven itself to be a disaster in the last 20 years....education puts people in huge debt, housing is unaffordable, healthcare is so expensive that you better off dead, most people can't start a family......this is when companies in most industries are having record profits.

What kept capitalism in check in the 1940's-1980's was the fact that them communist soviets were gaining ground, which made capitalist afraid and shared more of the profits.

Greed is good

 

[JadeB]

Not everyone who hates capitalism is a socialist. We just hate capitalism. Right now, there is a mother who can't feed her kids, and they crying. Some people getting evicted over a buck. If you say you love capitalism, then you can okay with those conditions.

This

 

[bigdaddy88]

some of ya'll will defend the system till the day ya'll die smh....

 

[BigBlackSea]

I don't think you can have pure capitalism or pure socialism. You need to find a way to take the best elements of both. And there are good elements to both.

I think as much as some of the posters in here rail against capitalism, I think we can agree what the US has isn't pure capitalism.

I think to determine the benefits and negatives of both, people need to willing to have an honest conversation about both which neither side seems willing to do.

Capitalism does create social and racial inequalities given the right circumstances.

On the converse, Capitalism creates innovation and has raised the standard of living unlike any other economic system in history.

Socialism creates a more egalitarian society.

Socialism also has the potential to inhibit productivity.

I've said it before on here, you will never have people agree to a system where there is an equal division of resources, but an unequal division of productivity. It will never happen.

The Scandinavian model seems ideal to me, but those countries are largely homogenized ethnically. The US has a fukked up history on race, so I would hope we could put a similar model in place, but in this current climate its unlikely.

Good points here.

I'd argue against capitalism creating innovation.

If the goal is to maximize profits, a lot of companies would be pissing money on endeavors that potentially won't pan out. It's why R&D breakthroughs are spearheaded through government funding.

It's safer for a capitalist to take a sound idea and add a slight spin on it to differentiate themselves in the market.

Moreso, if there is an idea that is brought to life, the capitalist is incentives to hoard that idea for their own profit, rather than make the idea open source. NDAs and such are used to police this transfer of ideas.

If there is no profit motive, a capitalist won't bother trailblazing.

I would also argue standard of living has gone up, but so has cost of living. Potential homeowners can easily be priced out by a corporation that will outbid any likely buyers by a massive margin.

I would also productivity is an owner class issue, not a working class issue. However, I would like to know your opinions on why workers should be concerned with productivity.

I'm not well versed on it, but the Scandinavian model is good on paper compared to the US, but I think I heard someone mention that they can only afford that model because of the unequal trades and exported labor performed in the global south.

 

[Thanos]

I don't think you can have pure capitalism or pure socialism. You need to find a way to take the best elements of both. And there are good elements to both.

I think as much as some of the posters in here rail against capitalism, I think we can agree what the US has isn't pure capitalism.

I think to determine the benefits and negatives of both, people need to willing to have an honest conversation about both which neither side seems willing to do.

Capitalism does create social and racial inequalities given the right circumstances.

On the converse, Capitalism creates innovation and has raised the standard of living unlike any other economic system in history.

Socialism creates a more egalitarian society.

Socialism also has the potential to inhibit productivity.

I've said it before on here, you will never have people agree to a system where there is an equal division of resources, but an unequal division of productivity. It will never happen.

The Scandinavian model seems ideal to me, but those countries are largely homogenized ethnically. The US has a fukked up history on race, so I would hope we could put a similar model in place, but in this current climate its unlikely.

The "Pros" of capitalism are from fighting it We need a system that actually benefits the people and regulates unfettered behavior. Whether you call that socialism or not, it's on y'all but Rent due tmmr and a lot of nikkas end up on the street because someone decided Rent had to go up.

 

[RickyDiBiase]

Not everyone who hates capitalism is a socialist. We just hate capitalism. Right now, there is a mother who can't feed her kids, and they crying. Some people getting evicted over a buck. If you say you love capitalism, then you can okay with those conditions.

I didn’t say I love capitalism not one time in this thread, think with your brain breh

 

[Vandelay]

Good points here.

I'd argue against capitalism creating innovation.

If the goal is to maximize profits, a lot of companies would be pissing money on endeavors that potentially won't pan out. It's why R&D breakthroughs are spearheaded through government funding.

It's safer for a capitalist to take a sound idea and add a slight spin on it to differentiate themselves in the market.

I hate to say the word "inherently" because I saw it misused multiple times in this very thread, but capitalism is an inherently individualistic/privatism endeavor. I would disagree that innovation is solely spearheaded by the government. There's a lot of people who would argue the government does NOT innovate at all. I significantly disagree with that as well.

However, Capitalism ALWAYS has to innovate because the nature of Capitalism is unfettered growth. Inflation and competition will erode the gains of capitalism for that organization if innovation is not applied. I think boiling innovation down to significant leaps in technological progress is discounting the 1000s of small innovations that occur from technological revolution to technological revolution.

The whale oil lamp, to the incandescent bulb, to sodium lamps, to LED lights all incurred 100s of design revisions that the government didn't invest in. The market necessitated those innovations and subsequent products were developed. This same process has happened 1000s of times over 100s of industries.

Moreso, if there is an idea that is brought to life, the capitalist is incentives to hoard that idea for their own profit, rather than make the idea open source. NDAs and such are used to police this transfer of ideas.

If there is no profit motive, a capitalist won't bother trailblazing.

Again, capitalism is an individualistic endeavor. Where I think it needs to detour is, if their are gross profits derived from the productivity of those gains, they need to be taxed appropriately. No innovations or companies are successful independent of the society that fostered that companies growth; from the labor, to the land, to other discoveries, to the upfront capital provided; it's all a system that should be feeding into each other. If you are able to increase productivity, then you can have a bigger portion, but you can't have THE WHOLE portion, some of it has to go back into the system.

I would also argue standard of living has gone up, but so has cost of living. Potential homeowners can easily be priced out by a corporation that will outbid any likely buyers by a massive margin.

I won't disagree with this. This is unfair marriage of capitalism with the state. No one entity or only a few entities should be able to buy all of the properties in a single area. Some silly shyt I read and realized about the real estate industry recently is, the purchase of a single home price in one neighborhood can impact the value of all the houses in the neighborhood. Combine that with the phenomena of companies buying multiple properties with cash in hand, and the absurd zoning laws in some cities, you get these out of control real estate markets that only benefit conglomerates.

I would also productivity is an owner class issue, not a working class issue. However, I would like to know your opinions on why workers should be concerned with productivity.

Individual productivity is measured by the complexity of the task and the output it provides to whatever good or service. Individual productivity and societal benefit should factor into the wages of jobs. Should air traffic controllers make the same wages as a toll booth attendants?

Do I think CEOs should make 350 times the average employee or the highest paid state worker in every state be the college football coach, fukk no.

I'm not well versed on it, but the Scandinavian model is good on paper compared to the US, but I think I heard someone mention that they can only afford that model because of the unequal trades and exported labor performed in the global south.

There are a lot of dynamics in play with Scandinavia; Norway in particular that only would work for those countries. A model in the US wouldn't be an exact duplicate. The Scandinavian countries benefit from smaller, homogenized populations, and high oil exports from Norway that they use to partially subsidize their standard of living.

A lot of people discount the US's manufacturing capability, and America has somewhat retarded their manufacturing output vis-a-vis

• The Bretton Woods agreement, which allowed for economic specialization within each of the participating countries, and America could essentially pay for those services and products with American dollars
• The Jones Act, which effectively made interstate boat transportation prohibitively expensive for American companies. The Mississippi, little do people realize that it is the longest intra-country navigable River in the world AND it can reach the Atlantic Ocean. It is by far the cheapest method of transportation in the world, but it is priced out of competitiveness internal to the US. It's also why shipping to US territories and Hawaii/Alaska is ridiculously expensive.

If both of these went away, with the reshoring and "DE"globalization that's about to occur, i believe the incremental profits a lot of companies are about to make can be reinvested back into American social policies. Quite honestly, they're going to have to, because apart of the growing racial division in this country is spurred along by the increasing economic division.

Just my two cents.

 

[Vandelay]

The "Pros" of capitalism are from fighting it We need a system that actually benefits the people and regulates unfettered behavior. Whether you call that socialism or not, it's on y'all but Rent due tmmr and a lot of nikkas end up on the street because someone decided Rent had to go up.

I agree. See above. A pure model of either system will not work. All of these economic systems are not binary and exist on a spectrum, to say otherwise is being a pure ideologue.

 

[Micky Mikey]

Seemed like before COVID every chance you have a convo with a young breh or somebody a mf bringing up socialism or some weirdo shyt. Smh. Then when you try to explain why systemically that shyt can’t sustain itself and add the human nature element to it they get to going on about “whataboutism” etc but thankfully it seems a lot of em wisened up, and getting up to speed about entrepreneurship, trades or going back to school and leave all that broke boy babel to the weirdo blacks and cacs

Ha! You think the appeal to socialism is dead. Wait 5 - 10 years from now when climate change wreaks the planet. The illusion of infinite economic profit-driven growth on a finite planet will be utterly destroyed.

 

[RickyDiBiase]

Ha! You think the appeal to socialism is dead. Wait 5 - 10 years from now when climate change wreaks the planet. The illusion of infinite economic profit-driven growth on a finite planet will be utterly destroyed.

 

[King]

Ironically you agent fakkits would prefer socialism so you’ll have your boule vanguard party in charge of everything

 

[King]

And that wasn’t a jab at socialism @RickyDiBiase you COlNTELPRO fakkit.

 

[RickyDiBiase]

And that wasn’t a jab at socialism @RickyDiBiase you COlNTELPRO fakkit.

You kiss your father on the lips you dikk massager

 

[Eternal Tecate]

Point to a socialist country doing better

China