Hi all,

I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

  • TheRealGChu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a simplistic, solipsistic, history-blind take! Do you have no knowledge of the 19th century? Arguably, before the Civil War was the prime time of truly “free markets” and pure capitalism in the US. It was also a time of drastic wealth inequality, exploitation of anyone that wasn’t a white, male landowner, to say nothing of slavery. How many thousands died creating the railroads in the US? All of those millionaires like Carnegie, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockerfeller, all made their money on the backs and deaths of poor people.

    Prior to FDR and the New Deal, we’d have Panics, where there’d be massive bank failures about every 20-30 years because of unfettered capitalism. And, just like the Great Recession, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. It was the New Deal and the FDIC that stopped the cycle.

    Workers rights are antithetical to capitalism. Triangles Shirtwaist Factory Fire, children in the coal mines in Appalachia, coolie labor building the railroads.

    We are not “wealthier, healthier, and happier” because of capitalism. It was the New Deal that helped shape the world the US has now, for which conservativism has been chipping away since Nixon. Socialistic practices like labor unions, collective bargaining, etc., brought wealth and stability, and created the massive middle-class that we have now. There had been no real middle-class before that, historically, just the rich and the poor. FDIC stopped the Panics; labor unions and collective bargaining brought wealth and education the working class, thus elevating and creating the massive middle-class we have now. Prior to the Great Depression, life was pretty awful and hard if you weren’t rich in the US.

    I’m not shitting on capitalism, but it needs the limitations that socialism brings to keep it in check, to keep it accountable, and not run roughshod over minorities, women, and children.

    Also, scientific advancements actually came a lot from war, sad to say. The exponential growth of computers, GPS, obviously nuclear technology, a lot of medicine and medical procedures (thanks MASH units in Korea!) all came out of war. As for later 20th century advancements? All funded by the government. I’d suggest reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book, Accessory to War.

    • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.

      The US government did not produce all the technologies. Many of them are from private companies. Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.

      • TheRealGChu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.

        What? Do you have only a black/white mentality? Of course not. We have a mixed system, as does almost the rest of the world that isn’t a dictatorship. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there’s a compelling argument that one really can’t exist without the other.

        Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.

        Yes, that’s called socialism. The government levies taxes from its people, then the government redistributes the wealth, that’s the very definition of socialism.

        • Qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What? Do you have only a black/white mentality? Of course not. We have a mixed system, as does almost the rest of the world that isn’t a dictatorship. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there’s a compelling argument that one really can’t exist without the other.

          We have a mixed system. But we are capitalistic leaning are we not? Being capitalist or socialist are not discrete choices, but a continuous scale. I agree with you on that.

          Btw the 1929 great crash was facilitate and exacerbated by lax Federal Reserve control of money issuance and the drastic tightening after the crash. This is actually an argument against centralized money.

          Yes, that’s called socialism. The government levies taxes from its people, then the government redistributes the wealth, that’s the very definition of socialism.

          Well a joint stock company also does that. It engages in production. It does redistribute wealth. For a long time, public services e.g. firefighting, were provided by private entities. Is it socialism? I don’t think so. It has to involve coercion, say, via monopoly of violence to be socialism as it is a form of governing.

          • TheRealGChu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Btw the 1929 great crash was facilitate and exacerbated by lax Federal Reserve control of money issuance and the drastic tightening after the crash. This is actually an argument against centralized money.

            I’d suggest you look up the Panics of the 19th century.

            Well a joint stock company also does that. It engages in production. It does redistribute wealth. For a long time, public services e.g. firefighting, were provided by private entities. Is it socialism? I don’t think so. It has to involve coercion, say, via monopoly of violence to be socialism as it is a form of governing.

            You obviously don’t understand what socialism means. Socialism, by its definition, means involving government, be it local or federal. So, a private company is not socialism, a private fire fighting brigade is not socialism.