this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
334 points (94.9% liked)
Socialism
5184 readers
26 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is the way we do it! :-P
No, it isn't. "Capitalism" doesn't depend on growth. You can have a shrinking economy, even an intentional degrowth economy, which is still capitalist.
Whatever thing it is you're referring to that assumes infinite growth, that thing isn't capitalism.
a capitalist society without growth is a failed society that will quickly be overthrown. It absolutely depends on growth, what incentive is there to invest capital otherwise?
You're conflating growth of particular capitalists' wealth, "profit", and growth of the entire economy. Capitalism's goal is profit but profit doesn't depend on growth of the entire economy. There are capitalists who profit even while the economy shrinks.
OP's meme was referring to growth of the economy, not profit. Again, capitalism doesn't depend on growth (of the economy).
... ok? and? a system that requires infinite profits in a finite world is still stupid as fuck
So you're saying stupid is bad?...
when it comes to an entire economic system that has the final say on how EVERYBODY ON THE ENTIRE PLANET LIVES THEIR LIVES FROM START TO FINISH?
yeah it's fucking terrible
OP's comment was stupid.
what makes it stupid?
The conflation of economic growth and profit.
you're missing the point. a system predicated on the infinite growth of either is objectively a bad idea. either way capitalism can't work. nitpicking this is missing the forest for the trees
LOL
Capitalism specifically incentivizes seeking maximum profit, which also means increasing profit growth at all costs. Finance and speculation, inherent to capitalism, further pushes and necessitates further expansion to cover the average costs of the gambling and speculation. You have to remember recessions and depressions are not always contractions in the economy, they are usually just caused by less than "necessary" amounts of growth.
You're conflating growth of particular capitalists' wealth, "profit", and growth of the entire economy. Capitalism's goal is profit but profit doesn't depend on growth of the entire economy. There are capitalists who profit even while the economy shrinks.
OP's meme was referring to growth of the economy, not profit. Again, capitalism doesn't depend on growth (of the economy).
Many capitalists are losing their investments when the economy shrinks though, even if some benefit. The system as a whole needs growth, as all the propertied are expecting to continue accumulating constantly, as physical resources dry up, and workers can hardly be exploited any more.
That doesn't contradict what I said.
The system as a whole isn't capitalism.
It literally is though. In the middle ages would you have said "it's not all feudalism, there's actually some merchants too!"
So the current global market, as counted by GDP isn't capitalism?
Oh, wait, you're right. China's socialist, so not the whole international system. Any given imperialist country still relies on growth to keep capitalism alive, though.
?
I think they're referring to a common growth projection strategy used in modern capitalism which is basically whatever number we made last year + X% is our goals for this year and if we don't make that growth then it's considered a failure and now we have to lay people off.
No capitalist is ever okay with doing just as well as last year, or recognizing that last year was an extraordinary circumstance that gave us blockbuster sales and it isn't necessarily repeatable.
It may not be the textbook definition, but it's definitely a trait of modern capitalists.
The closed, finite system we are referring to is of course Earth. Capitalism requires expansion, but what do you do when you cannot expand further?
It actually doesn't, Capitalism works just fine in a closed system with finite resources. In fact it may be the best system in those circumstances. What doesn't work is whatever in the fuck you just described is called. It's absolutely happening and it absolutely doesn't work.
As an economic system I've long maintained that Communism is a fantastic idea but the "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" that many people envision simply won't be possible until we actually reach the state of post scarcity, until then we're left assigning limited resources in our closed system.
In the meantime our Governments need to get the Capitalists of the type you described, let's call them Greedsters, back in line and I'm actually not against them using "Capital" (lol) punishment to make that happen.
As long as there is a system where money is literally power, corruption will always take hold.
As long as there is a system where anything is power corruption will take hold. Want food and only that group over there has any? Well, now they've got the power. Do you make clothes and that guy over there wants some? You have the power. Resource scarcity leads to power, power leads to abuse, abuse leads to corruption.
The only way the cycle is broken is for nearly everything to be accessible to nearly everyone nearly all the time. That, in a nutshell, is “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” and the only way it can be achieved is by reaching a true post scarcity society.
Huh, i just realized where I'm commenting. Hi Socialists!
Corruption doesn't come from money, it comes from biological life's need to survive and reproduce. Corruption will take hold, not in systems where money is power, but in any system comprised of human beings.
How?
I don't understand what you're asking.
How will corruption take hold, regardless of system?
People will prioritise their own benefit at the expense of others'. They will enrich themselves.
No, people prioritize thier own benefit. People work to improve their material conditions, doing so at the expense of others is unnatural, because humans are a social, cooperative species.
Your assertion that exploiting others is unnatural is patently absurd. To repeat myself from elsewhere:
Co-operation doesn't conflict with greed. Humans can and must co-operate within society to survive but humans are also motivated to do everything they can to screw over others to ensure their genes have the greatest chance of propagating, as long as screwing over others doesn't threaten survival.
You can claim bullshit, but it doesn't make it true. It's a naturalistic fallacy.
Think about what you just said, logically: you think people have an intrinsic motivation to screw over others to get ahead, but also that humans are communal? You believe being selfish and greedy is positively related to reproduction, despite being massive red flags and hindering the group's survival?
Nonsense.
ROFL. Adultery. Theft. Fraud. Murder. I don't understand how you can be blind to human behaviour.
More from another post:
"Human beings must necessarily cooperate and aid each other in order to survive. It's how our species evolved. However, that doesn't mean humans only ever aid each other, or even that they care about others except as a means to survive. Humans will cooperate when it's beneficial and also stab their fellow humans in the back, step on them and exploit them when it's beneficial. That's why all we have are systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death. But the species continues because of those systems."
Edit: have a watch of this video:
Power Games
I never once said humans cannot act outside of collaborative measures, but you on the other hand claimed this is a natural and present desire, regardless of system. This is false.
It is not false, it's evolutionary psychology. Have a look at this video:
Power Games
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Power Games
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It is false. You believe there is an intrinsic desire to sabatage, innate to humans, which is false. This behavior is only present in stressed conditions, what comes first is desire for cooperation.
I have not used the word "desire".
It is not false. Again, it is evolutionary psychology.
The need to increase one's chances of survival and of passing on one's genes is always present and is not limited to stressed conditions.
It is false. Evolutionary psychology pushes against sabotage, because it risks the group.
It is not false.
I haven't used the word "sabotage" and I'm not sure what you're referring to when you use it. I don't understand why you've introduced the word.
Exploitation per se doesn't necessarily threaten a group's survival. Exploitation is harm to one and benefit to another. Evolution only cares about which benefits the species more.
It is false. I used the word sabotage because it's accurate, humans go for cooperation before all else.
We're not communicating. You're deluded. Best of luck.
This isn't capitalism.
Traits of particular capitalists are not what constitutes capitalism.
If it isn't capitalism then I would argue it's a direct consequence of the incentives it sets up. When a venture is primarily owned by investors whose only interest in it is a return on investment, sooner rather than later, it sort of sets up exactly what I described does it not?
Maybe the words I should have used were "unfettered capitalism"?
No it doesn't.
While technically true in theory, I was pointing out how in practice people tend to implement it differently. It doesn't help that almost every irl system that people describe as "capitalist" is not pure - e.g. the UK (& the USA in the era of 50s-60s) are a mixture of socialist policies & capitalist ones, like there can be "public" (socialism) schools funded by taxpayer dollars and controlled by the government side-by-side along with "private" (capitalist) schools that aim to provide a different experience (usually higher-end but oftentimes something else like a more religious affiliation). So the "pure capitalism" theoretical model does not seem to have much irl practical application, without adding all of those extra features that while not mandatory in the theory, seem to almost always be used in practice.
You're not describing socialism, socialism is when the workers own the means of production. You're describing capitalist government programs.
Right, it is quite a stretch, I get it. Citizens pay taxes and vote thereby have extremely diluted control over the means of production for schools, as opposed to private schools where they control it by means of their dollars going towards whichever one they choose (causing them to compete for that privilege). It's an extremely watered-down form of socialism existing inside of an other capitalist-dominated society, but the main point is that whatever it is / whatever words are used to describe it, the goal of it runs counter to the goal of capitalism to make profits, and instead just benefits the populace directly (many caveats aside, like how schools are funded in large measure from local taxation, causing a segregation effect where the rich tend to congregate together and thus have good schools whereby the poor must also congregate together, out of whatever is leftover, and thereby have lesser quality schooling - but that aside, within a given school district, the aim is usually for the children to be taught equally without regard for ability to pay, though heavy caveats exist there too e.g. supplies, lunches, etc.).
Anyway, I cannot defend the OP meme, I was only trying to point out what looks to have been the POV behind it.
That’s just capitalism. It’s absurd to define capitalism as only capitalism absent government intervention when the government has always existed on their behalf (as long as the system’s been in place).