Do you support capitalism?

[Intell]

Also using the USSR to make an argument for capitalism, would be like using Hati (of the past) as an argument for the slave trade.

...what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republic

[Karpatsky]

Also using the USSR to make an argument for capitalism, would be like using Hati (of the past) as an argument for the slave trade.

...what?

Many people cite the economic failure of the USSR as if it is the only argument needed to show capitalism is 'good'. The point is that this is a flawed argument because it isn't a binary, like arguing that the failure of Haiti is evidence that they would be better off as slaves.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol at no voters.

[dead0man]

Lol at no voters.

indeed.  Soft rebels or total morons, everyone of them.

[PSOL]

Yes, in our current age nothing has been formulated to replace it.

[Lechasseur]

Yes, of course. That doesn't make me a neolib, it makes me not a communist.

[Person Man]

 No and neither does socialism or communism.

[RINO Tom]

Definitely

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Until the human race becomes a race of cyborgs or invents replicators/transporters, capitalism is the best system of exchange for a flawed world.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Socialism and capitalism are perfectly compatible. Who cares? Economics is about utility, not what god (Marx, Smith) you worship.

[parochial boy]

Socialism and capitalism are perfectly compatible. Who cares? Economics is about utility, not what god (Marx, Smith) you worship.

Yes, but you see, everyone defines both capitalism and socialism as whatever is most compatible with their worldview.

Hence we see the claim that Barack Obama is a Socialist, but also the claim that the USSR was, in fact, not socialist.

[warm istanbul]

Also using the USSR to make an argument for capitalism, would be like using Hati (of the past) as an argument for the slave trade.

...what?

The USSR was not a proper Marxist state. It was created out of the rubble of feudalism (which Marx pointed out could not work for socialism), and very quickly seized by a strong man who had intended anything BUT the withering away of the state. While it never became the completely 100% on board with capitalism nightmare that PRC is today, it slowly bled whatever socialist values it had as the party leaders became concerned with having fancy clothes and Mazerati's to show off at U.N. meetings. There was also a significant brain drain as many of the socialist philosophers left either because they were deported or got disgusted with how much the Party had sold them out.

[Person Man]

Socialism and capitalism are perfectly compatible. Who cares? Economics is about utility, not what god (Marx, Smith) you worship.

[Dr. MB]

Realized I never answered myself.

Anyway, no, I think it's unsustainable, but we're stuck with it.

[The Govanah Jake]

   Supporting an ideology purely is not usually a productive measure when coming to actual governance. Usually, if an ideology in a certain country is implemented, it is subjugated to a form of nationalism/pragmatism to make an interactive and proactive economic market feasible. The Soviet Union did not just become a symbol of Marxian idealism. Instead, consecutive leaders make variants and compromises that worked with the overall national interests. So much so that the final product was some form of nationalized feudalism.

   Thus when it comes to capitalism, unabridged all of it, it usually is not susceptible. Some form of regulation is required to reign in the eventual result of speculation and in fact the destruction of a freer market itself. I do support capitalism, as a free market has shown great advancements in the human condition, yet the marginalized should not perish with an increasingly greater lack of centralized restraint. They too should hold in this innate opportunity of success without corporatist monopolization blocking their path.

[The Mikado]

This is a bit like "do you support gravity." Gravity doesn't give a damn whether you support it or not.

[JA]

No. It's not only an inherently unfair, exploitative, and authoritarian socio-economic system, but it's unsustainable on a planet with finite resources, an incredibly fragile climate and ecosystem, and the tendency to exacerbate the worst aspects of humanity (greed).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

Because people like owning things? Like a house or taking care of something that's theirs alone? If I had to work in some Marxist factory for just some bread lines and the "greater good of the society" - I'd definitely go insane or just jump off a cliff.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

I can’t write in library books. And capitalism was necessary to get us to the paperless library (which I eschew). I’m not a huge libertarian, but your line of questioning has frightening implications for privacy and individuality.

[DC Al Fine]

Lol at no voters.

indeed.  Soft rebels or total morons, everyone of them.

Agreed

The sheer amount of absolute poverty alleviated under our so called exploitative capitalist system in the past two decades is astonishing. For all the complaints about screwing workers, third world workers are improving their standard of living quite a bit.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

I can’t write in library books. And capitalism was necessary to get us to the paperless library (which I eschew). I’m not a huge libertarian, but your line of questioning has frightening implications for privacy and individuality.

But great implications for banning books and controling information if we are only allowed to rent commie books.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

I can’t write in library books. And capitalism was necessary to get us to the paperless library (which I eschew). I’m not a huge libertarian, but your line of questioning has frightening implications for privacy and individuality.

A library is a communist idea, and it basically shows you how it works. It has two main advantages: 1) access is cheap, basically everyone can make use it for a small fee a year (at least it works like this in Belgium), 2) lots of books, movies and so on are available to rent. Isn't something available in a certain library, they could make it bring over from a different library. In combination with a free market that should guarantee that anyone should have the right to read any book they want, even Mein Kampf or obscure books in a different language that might not be available in our library. The problem however is that the economy currently is steered way too much towards that free market (consistent of mainly powerful greedy multinationals), that hurts local companies, that hurts nation-wide, state-wide and even worldwide interests and that currently right now the economy isn't doing what it is supposed to do. We invented economy to make it serve humans and nature... but right now we people are serving our economy, and it isn't doing anymore what's supposed to do. It's basically nuts that we damage our climate because we want to protect our economy, but what economy should we start to protect when we no longer have a decent place to live in. It's almost like a paradox. It's the main issue i have with pro-market liberals and libertarians, and why i would never support them (which i've done in the past and regret). Even local shop owners are starting to understand that we're with them and that we try to protect their economy so that local pizzeria's or fastfood-restaurants for instance don't get bankrupt because a new quick / mcdonalds shop was built in our small city (and they of course have way more resources / money), because they have a chain of shops worldwide which all earn money (and in which they can underpay their local workers). Different rules apply to them. They're like predator multinationals that have the resources to outcompete local businesses, similar in a way to some politicians that have a fundraising advantages and the PAC (i'm also a big opponent of "big money" in politics).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Hard no. Will never support it.
Capitalism is the main reason we suffer from environmental stress conditions and climate change now. In my belief you can't be pro-market liberal / pro-capitalist and pro-action against climate change. It simply doesn't work. If it would, action would already have been taken. Liberals in my country don't do anything for the environment & climate. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to overproduction and overconsumption while we need to focus on a sustainable society. Why should everyone have a car, if we can invest in public transport. Why should everyone have tons of books, if we have a library where you can basically rent it for free. That's the principle thought behind it.

Because people like owning things? Like a house or taking care of something that's theirs alone? If I had to work in some Marxist factory for just some bread lines and the "greater good of the society" - I'd definitely go insane or just jump off a cliff.

There is nothing wrong in that, but i'm starting to theorize that maybe such a system would hurt our standing and society too much on the long run. I mean: should we start to think in terms of only a few generations / a few centuries, at most 1000 years. Or should we start to think to create a long-term sustainable society. Even in the worst scenario's for the climate, we won't be affected as much (of course, actually we would.. but our world will still be way more liveable than for future generations, even when heatwaves / tropical cyclones and the consequences of global warming will affect us way more next century), but the people who are in "real sh**t" are the ones that will follow when we die, and the generations who will live at the end of 21st century, 22nd century and 23th century. They'll be confrontated with the effects of our waste society, in which we buy things and throw it away whenever it has no purpose anymore or whenever we don't like it anymore, and we all forget that everything brings a cost, that everything that had to be produced created waste and created CO² in order to be produced. This is the problem we currently face in our society. We definitely need to change our attitude if we ever want clean nice blue air back again, or if we want normal temperatures again, if we want to preserve ecosystems, if we want to save endangered animals. Do we want animals to live freely on our world, that all have a place next to us, or do we want a world where animals would only be able to survive in imprisonment (a zoo), because over the course of last millenia we've claimed all their space.

I had a discussion with a economic libertarian lately, and he said that the market will eventually adapt to it's demand. If people want "blue air", the market will make it available, he said. And i've said, so this is the miserable future we face. Eventually governments will have to pay for blue air through companies that will specialize in creating blue and clean air to breathe in.

[dead0man]

<looks around at everybody else>
He understands that air isn't really blue, right?