You must log in or # to comment.
To be fair experimenting is good. It’s still better than feudal system. I just wish we experimented with other models once in a while too.
I will read a sci-fi novel thousands of years into the future with fantasy-magic system, and economic model is still “21st century capitalism but we replaced the word money with credits so it’s future now.”
Capitalism exists to replace feudal systems. It’s easier to have kings, and to have a handful of them so they aren’t fighting as much for a single spot, when you convince the average idiot that now they can also be a king and its their own fault that they aren’t(or better yet, another person’s fault as you oppress them both).
When all the people who had gotten rich by being parasites because of who they were related got afraid they just changed the rules so that it wasn’t ahout blood relation anymore(on paper) but they still had all the money they’d stolen. Nothing functionally changed.
The entire system “the rich get everything they want and no one gets to stop them” does not have a good version. It’s fucked every single way.
It’s still better than feudal system.
According to whom? I wonder what we would see if we were to compare the average amount of labour time feudal peasants had to put in to survive vs. that of the current global proletariat.
I’d agree that capitalism has been better for some - like, for instance, white ex-peasants who now gets to be members of the (so-called) “middle class” or gets to cosplay as pseudo-nobility in colonised spaces- but it has been an unmitigated disaster for lots of others.
According to whom?
According to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it’s mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family’s subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immense political power. That’s what communists are trying to do - progress forward so we produce not for profit, but for use based on need which would solve these issues.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it, owning a small amount of land that they worked for themselves. Proletariat are urbanized, work in factories they don’t own and produce for thousands of people. A more apt comparison in work hours would be proletariat vs guild apprentices - their exploitation and work hours were essentially the same and this system was precursor to capitalist wage labor.
Concerning peasants, some (serfs) didn’t own any land, while others (freemen) did. Serfs could be better off than freemen though.
Capitalism is a historical progression
Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying “in theory”, yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the replacement of the nobility class with the new bourgeoisie class.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it
The comparison is not to equalize the proletariat and peasantry in their relationship to the means of production, but in the demographic comparison for who is the majority of the planet. In Feudal times, peasants, including serfs make up the majority of people. And serfs are decidedly not middle class. Peasants were an exploited class under feudalism, duped by the bourgeoisie to support the inevitable capitalist revolution that would “improve their quality of life”, only to find themselves alienated industrial laborers and at the bottom of class society once again.
The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also. Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism, which is kinda why it sucks so much now. I hate capitalism, but feudalism was worse.
Fuedalism with a fuckload of democracy might work. But it always turns into a bloodline thing.
The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also.
Perhaps, but I have to wonder how many feudal peasants would willingly exchange their existence for the precariat one we exist under.
Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism
If that is true, then it must mean that capitalism never replaced feudalism, but was instead built on top of feudalism - which is not that difficult to believe if you live in a 3rd-world extraction zone (like I do).
Its also not hard to believe if you ́look at the continuation of power across much of Europe. Its not a 1:1 comparison but lots of families of feudal lords are still wealthy and powerful today if they didn’t completely fuck up. The power has spread out but has concentrated in other ways.
Who has switch over from feudalism been a disaster to?
I mean, just off the top of my head…
And, let’s not forget, those conditions never ended - they were just exported.
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism? Not sure things went worse for them because of capitalism, mining was always a dangerous and shitty job, often done by slaves or convicts because of how shit the conditions were.
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism?
In the pre-capitalist world mining practices were all over the place… it wasn’t just chain-gangs and overseers. And the conditions for it isn’t fundamentally any shittier than working a farm or a factory - I know because I can literally walk down the street and ask a zama-zama (an artisinal - “illegal”, according to our bootlicking media - miner) and ask him who and what it is that actually makes their work conditions shitty and dangerous.
We all know what happens to miners under the capitalist mode of production, however - it’s literally why some of the most vicious crackdowns on organised labour in history involved the mining industry.
Mining conditions are all over the place right now. Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks and with a lot of attention paid to safety and others live in horrible deathly conditions and are practically slaves
Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks
Only in places where labour organising have managed to win concessions in spite of the capitalist mode of production - a capitalist mode of production that is reproduced globally to this very day. If it wasn’t for the need to stabilise the imperial core, coal miners in Germany would be treated no differently than cobalt miners in the DRC. There is nothing comparable to that in the pre-capitalist world - not even the brutal exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish was reproduced globally.
You are trying to compare apples with oranges.
Blue Raspberry Capitalism. No, wait… Peanut Butter Capitalism
Baja Blast Capitalism
Surveillance capitalism
Best economic system ever, they say. Unlike communism, this is a situation where you can say it has been tried many times throughout history.
Why do you tankies always say communism has never been tried? Power hungry people exist no matter the system, and so far…as much as the system is rigged, capitalism has brought a lot more people out of poverty than anything else. Communism has been tried countless times, it just ends up not working because power hungry people exist.
I’m by no means in support of communism but I think you’re assuming that these systems have been tested in a vacuum. Specifically with regard to communism in the global south where Western capitalist entities act as agents of sabotage in order to secure the people of these nations as a perpetually destitute global underclass. So that their corporations can continue to have access to underpaid labor. Which you and I benefit from in some way shape or form.
No system has really been tested in a vacuum. Some systems have just eirher adapted or endured it
Capitalism is the direct descendant of feudalism, a system that relies on essentially immutable social classes and bonded labor.
And capitalism also exists in a vacuum? Why is a system such as Communism supposedly so great but breaks because of outside influence…odd
Capitalism predates communism and has spent centuries chewing through human lives to get to it’s position of influence today. I refer you to the entirety of the colonial era.
No…no it doesn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism
Even marx suggested that it’s pretty much the first tried system.
Modern communism (is the age of industrialization) is essentially Marxism which is younger than capitalistic models.
Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian but its impossible to apply a pre-civilization framework to civilizational societies. So the fact that he referred to it as primitive communism is not an indictment on communism.
Communism as a political movement was introduced by Marx and Engles. Only since then has it been attempted on a nation state level. Prior to this nearly every political and economic system was an autocracy or monarchy where the state administered private land ownership rights to lords. There are very few exceptions to this in civilizational history.
So if we are looking at communism as a political and economic system as can be applied to modern civilizations ie. nation states, it is much younger than capitalism.
Capitalism doesn’t stand up to outside pressures inherently.
Yes that’s why it’s not being used in most of the world
Even though you’re getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn’t been tried before, but it’s also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone’s needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or “according to their need” in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn’t industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can’t provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if you don’t replace it quickly then even under proletariat class control opportunism will rear it’s ugly head, as seen in USSR. Of course there’s also other factors, but for communism to have a chance to work, it has to happen in an already developed country with international spread so capitalism over and done with quickly.
For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
Capitalism has brought a lot of people into poverty.
rofl you think I’m a tankie for shitting on capitalism!?
ahahaha way to broadcast how pitifully tiny your understanding is…
People being lifted out of poverty as an economic test COMPLETELY IGNORES the reality of technological advancement. Way to further demonstrate how you do not know even the major milestones of history, let alone economic history…
The technological advancements were in large part due to the large scale growth of industry under capitalism. Although lots of bloodshed and suffering was involved in the process, and without leftists fighting for reforms, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy its fruits today.
The mass availability of the internet, and many other pillars of infrastructure are a result of capitalism. And these developments definitely have increased living standards for the majority of humans, even ones in third world nations (The popular image of a destitute country with rampant poverty is extremely rare these days.)
lol no
So no alternative explanation? You should at least point me to some resources that say otherwise.
I fully acknowledge the wild ecological harm and rising inequality that capitalism has brought with it. However, even Marx had written about the system’s capacity for the advancement of industrial technology and productivity.
Centrally planned economies like the ones of the USSR and similar 21st century socialist states do not work. They would never have enabled the vast distribution and rapid development of technology like we see today. Lemmy itself is a product of capitalism.
Lemmy is made by communists.
Propped up by the global hardware distribution of capitalists, Linux (capitalist companies have made major contributions to linux, and still do), and the internet (distributed under a capitalist model)
The creator’s ideology does not matter
Removed by mod
What the fuck even is “stakeholder capitalism”. You mean the people with money???
It is the fantasy that corporations can serve the interest all stakeholders (employees, customers etc.) rather than a minority of shareholders as is currently: https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323
Sure. That can happen when all corporations have a legal duty to all
shareholdersstakeholders and they all have an equal right and access to influencing/suing them.It really just sounds like hand wavey bullshit.
I wouldn’t say it’s a fantasy, it’s just a currently different cultural perspective that is being taught to the next generation of business leaders.
Some people are bought into the idea, but unless the actual laws change it’s not so easy to legally be able to prioritize the needs of all stakeholders equally.
I personally don’t see stakeholder theory as the “fix”, but it’s a good start to get more ethical capitalism that’s not actively hurting the planet, workers, and communities.
Well all the business leaders who think that’s a dumb cultural perspective just bought all three branches of government.
They got what they wanted, but will they like it and will it stick? On a technical note things can improve and the three branches could flip back within 15 years at the most. For that to actually happen though people need to start feeling progressive wins now.
For that reason, the focus should be on trying to implement all the progressive programs we’ve been wanting federally, to be at the state level instead. States will likely need to be willing to go into debt to fund these programs, but if they do then the people living in those states will be much better off than they are now. Many people living in purple and red states will be much more likely to want those progressive programs when they actually are seeing how successful they are in Blue states as well.
They could serve their employees if they’re
employeeworker-owned. 😄Then that’s Mutualism lmao
Mfw Ezra Klein III is streaming holo-eds to my great grandkids excoriating the left for not supporting his new book “Mutualist Capitalism” after David Hogg failed to stop Barron Trump getting elected president for life
Or some form of socialism.
I assumed it meant capitalism where everyone is a stakeholder of the company they work for or something like that.
Oh I like this! Packaging communism and socialism as capitalism!
Yeah like giving you a few non-voting shares that give you the stakeholder vibes with none of the actual power.
The ongoing monopolisation, that will eventually become governmental monopolisation at which point the whole thing will go bust.
soon they will get the one they really want, fascist capitalism.
working as intended
Projection is when a socialist says it’s bad to give a failed economic system another try.
The height of human prosperity was under Keynesian economic policy. If we’re giving stuff another spin, why not something that actually worked? Maybe next time just not get suckered by grifters pushing trickle down supply side reaganomics voodoo economic policy. That shit is almost as bad a failure as communism. Almost.
The height of human prosperity*
*If you are a white Christian man of European decent
That was an “accident.” Just like Gary Webb’s two-shot “suicide.”
Excellent and delicious rage inducing master baiter material.
The height of human prosperity was under Keynesian economic policy.
