It's the owners of the land and the means of production that control all of the wealth.
Now it’s the owners of the holding companies who own the owners of all the rest doing the controlling.
Capitalism is now playing 3D chess
Trickle up economics
It's hardly a trickle either.
Shit, even at a trickle pace...
If I somehow got one single penny from every person on the planet, I'd have about $80,000,000...
Do you have a penny to spare for the cause?.. 😂
you know what's funny? you still wouldn't be close to the rich rich people
I know right..
That's a great idea to lift everyone out of poverty! If we all gave each other a penny we'd all be rich.
I caught myself mid laugh before realizing the reality of that statement.
More like a firehose
A firehose in the sky that sucks the rain back in.
Honestly one of the reasons I fell for a pyramid scheme coming out of high school.
A friend invited me and I went to shit on it and get him out, but the main guy's whole thing was "everything is a pyramid scheme, at least here you have the chance to build a pyramid beneath you."
Obviously there were other reasons as old as time, but the argument of "so what, your 'regular job' is already a pyramid scheme you can't win" was pretty rattling to a teenager in 2011.
The difference between a pyramid scheme and a good business is where your money comes from, in a pyramid scheme it comes from the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in a business it comes from selling goods and/or services, that's not saying I agree with big business, but one is profiting off of legitimate customers, the other is profiting off it's own "employees". I nearly got caught into one a few years ago too, until I realized what it was, at that point they had only taken a couple $100 for the interview and sign up stage, i had to block my card for them to never get access again, because even though i didnt complete sign up, thwy kept charging me monthly
What about the stock market? They seem to be pricing companies way higher than they are worth.
Imagine you own a goose that lays golden eggs. It lays one golden egg per year. How much would you sell it for? Probably not one golden egg, but definitely you'd sell if for a million gold eggs. You'd probably settle for maybe 5? 10? 15? Something like that.
Suppose the goose only lays one egg per year now (or none at all!) but it's still young and most people expect it to start laying four or five or even ten or twenty eggs per year in a few years from now. It's impossible to tell for sure how many it'll lay over its life, or when that will happen, or if it will happen at all. NOW how much do you sell it for?
That's the stock market.
A bunch of investors think a bunch of gooses will start laying a ton more golden eggs soon, and they're willing to pay big bucks now in exchange for the possibility of that in the future. This isn't a pyramid scheme or a zero sum game or anything like that. It's just a prediction of the future which may or may not be correct, and only time will tell.
That's the description of the very basics of the stock market.
Now do the derivatives, and let's see why it's gone to hell.
If anything this understates the problem.
True, because it's also a giant Ponzi scheme. We pick up new debt today to pay off debt from yesterday, and we hope expanding GDP and inflation will always offset the difference.
Is there a difference between a pyramid and a ponzi scheme?
It's used so interchangeably these days that I'm inclined to say no, but an oversimplication is that a ponzi scheme is always illegal and is more detailed in its mechanics (as named after conman Charles Ponzi). Wheras a pyramid scheme (or more commonly known: MLM) can actually be legal depending on how it's constructed.
A ponzi scheme involves a conman who scams his customers by taking massive profits from their investors and requires a constant stream of new investors to pay off the old ones. This is fraud.
A pyramid scheme usually involves some type of product and pays huge bonuses to the recruiters at the top for bringing in more people below them from the investment of new people below them. This is taxing uneducated people but can be legal.
TLDR: capitalism is more akin to a pyramid scheme and not at all like a ponzi scheme.
Yes, but most people using the term don't know their defitition, so knowing the correct definition is of limited usefulness.
Ponzi is for Investments that offer high returns, by marking the principal as gains.
Pyramid schemes sell stuff, through a pyramid of salesmen. Each one earns a percentage of the revenue of his underlings and is encouraged to recruit more underlings.
That's a good question. Amway is perhaps the architype pyramid scheme. They actually do sell products, but primarily to the marks they con into being 'amway agents' or whatever they call them. The marks, in addition to buying the shit, also kick back part of the proceeds from any sales up the ladder. A ponzi scheme doesn't actually do anything with the marks investment money other than use it to pay off the people in on the con.
Like social security?
You're not forced to take on that debt though, nor is the debt unpayable unless you take on more debt. Some people put themselves into a ponzi-like situation either through poor financial decision making or circumstances so shit that they can't do any better, but the average person doesn't need to take out a loan on a freaking pair of nikes or even a car or house. It's a cultural norm to get a mortgage, but if you do the math it often doesn't make sense to and isn't anywhere close to mandatory. At most you could argue that the US government debt works that way, but even that's iffy and depends on your geopolitical outlook.
I think the point isn't debt my man,l'm thinking OP means capitalism sells you the "if you work hard and play by the rules you too can be rich" as your buy-in. That's the scam.
Exactly. I'm thinking of dying for a few years so I can save up enough to get on the property ladder. Just waiting for a decent grave to come up on the outskirts of town where the rents aren't too high.
It fundamentally is NOT a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme there is no actual product or service of value and simply extracts wealth from the people in lower tiers. Value, or wealth, is simply the byproduct of an equitable transaction between two or more parties.
Except that you're describing commerce, not capitalism. Capitalism is the idea that the commerce has value, and that one can own the value of the commercial activity. Further, the value of the business is tied to it's growth.
Further, products and services are never exchanged in an equitable transaction between two parties, because capitalism necessitates a third party, the capitalist. The capitalist must acquire products and services from employees for less than their true value, and then sell them to consumers for more than their true value.
And because capitalism demands growth, one or both of those two margins must continue to expand. This means workers must be pressured to work for less and less, which is why the capitalist opposes social services, universal healthcare, and affordable housing. This also means the capitalism opposes consumer protections, environmental protections, and taxes that provide a functioning society that might interfere with their growth.
Now what happens when every producer and consumer is fighting for the same margins, the same advantages, and the same growth? Then the capitalist seeks new avenues for new capital and new capitalists. Building business on ensuring the growth of business for other capitalists. Selling the idea that you, too, can join us at the top of the pyramid, all the while kicking down ladders they climbed to get there.
So no, the system itself isn't a pyramid scheme. It's just an idea that encourages pyramid schemes because it relies on impossible growth, like a cancer eating away at society.
Further, products and services are never exchanged in an equitable transaction between two parties, because capitalism necessitates a third party, the capitalist.
Hang out with small business owners and you'll find lots of examples of two party exchanges. The closest thing to a third party is when there's a contract dispute that involves arbitration or a lawsuit.
The capitalist must acquire products and services from employees for less than their true value, and then sell them to consumers for more than their true value.
This isn't capitalism, this is employment. Employment has been a feature of most economic systems over the past few thousand years. It's important to ignore Marxist theory on employment and alienation because is relies on cherry picking facts to create bizarre and blatantly false narratives.
This sentence also packs in a misunderstanding of how value is generated in all economic systems, not just capitalism. The migrant worker is an economic staple in most (if not all) societies that engaged in agriculture. Take the Roman economy for example, migrant workers lack any property ownership themselves and so must sell labor for money. In the absence of tools, property and seeds, they are not able to generate anything of value for anyone else. A wealthy Roman farm owner has more land than they can work themselves. Without workers, their land has some value, but much less. When the farmer purchases labor for money, more food is produced than was consumed by both parties over that time period. If an excess of food is not generated, then somebody starves. The same thing holds for McDonalds. McDonalds owns a trademark, a marketing organization and a supply chain; all of which are useless without a restaurant. A franchise owner purchases access to the systems that McDonalds owns in order to create a restaurant. The restaurant is useless without a fry cook. The fry cook operates the kitchen gear in the restaurant in order to produce food for consumers. It's important to note that without the restaurant, the marketing and the supply chain, the labor of the fry cook is work very little.
And because capitalism demands growth
The demand for growth is not specific to capitalism. Economic systems that don't exhibit growth either can't physically support a growing population (with things like food or shelter), or the average standard of living decreases. Both of these situations are difficult to sustain for any political system.
No, fractional reserve banking demands endless growth because debts can't be paid off with interest since the extra money to pay the interest didn't initially exist. Therefore, banks have to lend out more money they don't have so the prior debts can be paid off but in the process they create more debt. But those following loans come with more interest which leads to the insatiable need for more growth in the economy by loaning more money.
Transactions are often not equitable, and most wealth bubbles up to the people on the top tiers.
Markets are not always fair or efficient but that doesn't mean capitalism is a pyramid scheme. It is still very much the opposite.
Unregulated capitalism places all of the power in the hands of the wealthy. Even with the amount of regulation in place, the last 4 decades has irrefutably proven that. The transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% has has been insane.
The only reason we need so much regulation is because people are garbage and if they can gain something for nothing, they will. You cannot consider the pure idea of capitalism without also considering the reality of human nature, that it is inherently going to create a pyramid scheme like situation where the top transfer power and wealth to themselves in the largest quantities they can, in spite of pesky things like laws and taxes.
Yes that is true, and you can view wealth distribution as pyramid shaped, but that is not what a pyramid scheme means. As noted the system is very good at producing massive amounts of commodities, distributing them all over the planet, and exchanging them for your labor. If capitalism did nothing useful it would have disappeared long ago.
Global south would like a word.
Like every proponent of capitalism ignores the cheap labor and blatant theft of natural resources the rich nations need to make the line go up.
It's not the virtue of capitalism that makes our lives so luxurious. It's the suffering of the rest of the world.
I don't disagree. Although it is still not a pyramid scheme.
So the first developed countries destroyed the environment just to get extra virtual numbers shown somewhere, and the rest, even though they directly or indirectly participated, got pollution, slavery, famine, but that is not a pyramid scheme?
Please explain, how exactly is fractional-reserve banking a pyramid scheme?
Because it allows banks to lend out money they don't have and when the banks lobby hard enough to completely remove whats left of the gold standard, the sky's the limit for lending out money. Creating money out of thin air increases inflation. However, in a weird way it impoverishes the lower classes while inriching the elite class because the latter tends to better connected and therefor closer to the "monetary spigot". This allows the elite class to buy up everything(land, companies, lobby/bribe governments)from the top down like a game of pacman.
That's a valid point, though I still wouldn't call it a pyramid scheme.
No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.
Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.
Pyramid schemes don't have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.
A hexagon!
They're zero sum because money is being exchanged, but the person losing money isn't getting anything in return for the exchange. Someone is just stealing from someone else (one person loses, anotber gains). No matter how many people are added to the scheme the mechanics remain the same.
An economy, be it a capitalist or communist one, involves the exchange of money but in exchange for goods and services. Both parties of the transaction gain from it.
Now, it could be argued that the wrong people gain the most from capitalism. That's another argument. But the system isn't zero sum, the way a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme is.
To all your guys huffing and puffing, I'm not passing moral judgment (here) about communism or capitalism. I'm just saying that any economic system involving trade is not zero sum the way a Ponzi-scheme is.
Except people are getting fewer goods and services while paying more money. For some, they're already at starvation wages even when working full-time and they have to dip deeply into credit just to survive.
I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can't really make money if you aren't making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.
Generally the idea is that both parties need to benefit from any transaction if it is voluntary.
When you have to eat and the means to feed ourselves is held by few, no transaction is voluntary.
Of course it's voluntary. You choose what you buy, when you do it, how much and from whom.
If someone held you on gunpoint and told you to buy their product, that would be involuntary.
You can choose what, when, how much, and from whom, but you are still are still forced to do so. Choosing which person puts me at gunpoint doesn't make it voluntary
You can also feed yourself by growing food or hunting. Neither of those are banned, just more inconvenient and you probably have some other skills to sell and buy food instead
I can only do so on land that I purchased. Or on someone else's land I purchased the right to do so on
Then do that, or choose not to.
If I choose not to I die. I can buy the food from someone who already has it, I can buy the right to make my own food, or I can choose to starve to death
Or hunt on public land.
That costs money. I have to buy the right to hunt on public land or I go to prison for poaching
Can I interest you in CWA (Crackers With Attitude)'s Fuck The DNR?
You are forced to buy food, shelter, healthcare, a vehicle (US). You are forced therefore to have a job to pay for these things. Employers know this, and suppress wages with those together, the proverbial gun.
Generally speaking, slavery is also benefitial to both parties, you're either a slave out you get killed. While technically voluntary (because a slave can still choose stand up to the oppressor, even if it's guaranteed to fail) we don't consider slavery voluntary. We can say that in this day and age our work is voluntary, but it's debatable.
You can look to this year how "voluntary" it is when the Hollywood execs literally said they will wait for the protesters to starve so they'd get back to work. When there's such a severe power dynamic it becomes almost no different to slavery, because you, individually, can be effectively forced back to work. The only reason Hollywood protests have any chance to have impact is because they collectively oppose the oppression. The power dynamic is being balanced (or dipped in the favor of labor) by sheer number of protestors / workers.
What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it's happening.
Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
care to expand on that at least a little? i dont follow.
and with a disappointing lack of giant pyramids, no less!
We need more polloman
DAE Capitalism bad?
omg me
Yes!
I've seen several thought experiments about capitalism, and letting it run to its extreme conclusion.
Attempt one, with the theoretical best starting conditions, devolved into feudalism
Attempt two, which assumed people knew how attempt one ended up and where they wanted to do everything they could to prevent that from happening again, concluded towards theocracy, since capitalism ignores religion, which can become a coercive power structure, separate from capitalism or government.
Attempt three, where everyone knew how the previous two experiments went, did away with money, and replaced it with an economy based on service contracts, evolved into communism.
Sounds like interesting reading, could you please add a link or reference?
More likely viewing. I'll update the previous post in a minute.
And I'll have to stress: it's specifically about anarcho-capitalism, with the explicit removal of any government. You'll keep hearing far-right conservatives insist that the best way to run the market is to keep the government out of it. Anarcho-capitalsim is that thing's platonic ideal, no need to wonder about the government being involved if there's no government involved.
As you'll see, at best that causes way more problems than a governed system causes. At worst, it creates a load of problems that a governed system prevents.
Thanks for the links!
Literally as soon as a society calls itself communist or socialist it turns into a perfect utopia
It can call itself whatever it likes, doesn't mean it actually is that thing.
To all the people here ranting about monetary debt: its not an issue. Money isn't designed to hold value in the long term. It's a feature, not a bug.
It's just really unfortunate for those who play the game as if money were an asset. It's meant for transactions, not for storage.
would you sign up to my pyramid scheme if I was a cat?? 🥺
Your honor I assure you, I am not a cat
Yes
We see your handle, bear.
Yes, but you're going to find the same thing with Communism.
Too many shitty greedy people at the top, too many plebs with fuck all at the bottom.
And while you may be thinking "I could live on a commune, spend an hour a day growing our own food and have all that time left for whatever else I want", you'll quickly find you can't grow your own 65" OLED television or whatever other comforts you've become accustomed to.
The billionaires need reining in, and better distribution of wealth all around the bottom, but capitalism ain't going anywhere.
Communism isn’t the same as a tech-less agrarian society
Communism doesn't mean there isn't commerce, it just means you communally own the means to produce it, and the profits from it
You don't need a 65" OLED TV because you know it's bad for the environment.
So are PCs and smartphones, yet here you are.
Yes it's a hard question how to deal with this. Practically all the consumer goods somehow harm the environment.
We have been consolidating electronics and making them smaller by volume for a couple decades now. Things are getting significantly better at an individual unit level. Reusing and recycling are also good options and should be made more effective. Lowering global populations soon should also help.
This is the ideal shower thought imo. Concise, absolutely true, and something you wouldn't realize on a daily basis (at least not in these terms)
Reminds me of that famous Churchill quote about democracy
Oh I know that one!
I’d say something about democracy, if only I had the internet to look up what I said.
Some retirement saving schemes may be a pyramid scheme. When the population growth stagnates, there will not be enough young people to produce for everyone.
How so though? This sounds like a statement that's meant to be flashy but doesn't actually hold up. Pyramid schemes are characterized by a) an eventual lack of ability to recruit more people, b) recruitment rather than a product or a service being the driver, and c) a person at the bottom left with nothing, including recourse. Capitalism, even completely free capitalism, doesn't work like that unless you specifically rig it to do so. That's called "corruption".
an eventual lack of ability to recruit more people
Global population growth is slowing and predicted to halt within the next few decades.
The modern economy has always relied on an environment of growth, which will now end. In some ways this resembles a pyramid scheme; in the past anyone making investments in the economy could count on a larger new generation of people coming into the market needing to exchange their labor for those hoarded resources. Since this is no longer going to be the case, new entrants to the market are going to be getting a lot less for their effort than they may have expected based on past trends.
Like half the population of the world are poor, every industry is using behind the doors sweatshops. Essentially slavery. While not a perfect synonym, I think it makes sense
in that there are hierarchical meritocratic levels of achievement?
or that there are extractive processes which benefit the top at the expense of those lower?
Capitalism is a scheme where finite raw materials are being extracted and where finite nature is being destroyed - both on the planetary scale; once we reach the end, it will be the end.
That's crony capitalism.
Maybe we have different ideas of "works"
I'm very curious about where that response even came from
I was also thinking that but now i see his comment as a reply to aome other comment so he probably have sent this by accident
You're right, my reply (to a comment) kept failing (looks like all of them posted, but wefwef told me they failed, so I spammed a similar comment multiple times, and it looks like one of them replied to the OP)
Very odd stuff
Capitalism is nothing but allowing freedom and allowing property (in contrast to posession)
actually all economies are zero sum game. down the drain everything is about ressources rather than labour or energy. the later are the means to transforming the resources. what counts at the end is how much you have to survive and thrive.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Whenever two people engage in a transaction and walk away happy, value has been created. A zero sum game would be if the economy were a pie of static shape, where if you have more then I have less. But it isn't like that. The pie grows, and every time there is an equitable transaction with value being created, the pie gets bigger and everyone is better off. That's the opposite of a zero sum game.
The Pie is of static shape, and that shape is all the resource planet is holding, and any part party who has more of those ressources means others will have less, the economy 'wealth" of the british empire didn't grow because it has engaged in equitable transaction with the colonised world (you can never have equitable __ insert something here __ ), they needed more ressources to grow and those ressources were extracted elsewhere
Just the same how the rich countries today aren't rich because they engage in equitable transactions with the poor world, but because the mecanisme that are put in place makes so those "equitable transactions" favours the hoarding of wealth on one side more than the other.
I'm not interested in a back and forth internet flame war about this, so I'll just say you are straight up wrong about economics being a zero sum game. This is a very common fallacy that somehow persists, most likely because we are all being squeezed by our corporate overlords for everything we are worth. But that is different from a zero sum game.
If you're interested then you should google "economics zero sum game fallacy" and learn a bit. Then come back if you are interested in engaging in some more discussion in good faith.
Being zero sum gain doesn't, a pyramid scheme, make.
At this point, "Capitalism" feels as undefined to the left as "Woke" is to the right. It may be bad, but people just put whatever they don't like into a box and call it "Capitalism".
Yeah, no, the left has always had a pretty consistent analysis of capitalism. It comes to different solutions to it, but we all pretty much agree why capitalism is bad.
Yea, I even agree on the analysis that it is bad. The trick is defining WHAT it is.
The definition is an economic system based on private property and market exchange of goods. That's a pretty much universal definition that has been accurate since the 1700s
What is bad about that?
I'm not going to summarize Marx, Kropotkin and the life's work of thousands of other leftist philosophers for you. Go read a book.
You would think thousands of philosophers could summarize something into an elevator speech. but I'll look up Kropotkin since that is not a name I've heard before. Thank you.
Atleast it works unlike covert fascist ideas like Marxism/Communism
"HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT!!"
Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
Communism is covert fascism? Why then did fascists round up and kill communists? The two are wholeheartedly opposed to each other.
Fanatics often hate those that are only slightly different from themselves the most. See Catholics vs protestants.
Sounds like you're pretty fanatically rooted in your belief and we're all slightly different from you 😂
It's ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions...and caused millions more to die of starvation....but it's ok because fascist killed them in WW II..
Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I'm curious why it's "okay" in their case.
The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people's hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it's an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government's socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating "pure communism" or "pure capitalism" is a rube.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.
I didn't watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.
My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an "intelligencia" owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.
Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO
I'm familiar with the Venus Project, I don't believe there is much overlap in their ideas.
In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.
Okay I will have to watch your video and get back to you.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can't be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual's buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don't understand what you mean by that people can't own things in capitalist societies. I would say there's maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
Sorry, edit needed. I mean in pure communism, people are denied of their ability of owning a company or whatever. Not capitalism
It's not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I'm not starving or have nothing for my labor.
At least with capitalism I'm not starving or have nothing for my labor.
Ah nice self-unmasking. "I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don't want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty."
You are just selfish and afraid.
It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.
Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people...o wait they just euthanize them.
None of those are communism lol
That's because that's what communism turns into...you tankies are a delusional bunch.
Ah throwing buzzwords around you don't know the meaning off? Weak.
Also, none of those ever were communism, so they can't be "WhAt ComMuNisM TuRns InTo"
Ok tankie
This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/"developed" world. Half the world's population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.
Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.
Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.
oh god did u get the "actual starvation" thing from yeon mi park? Here u got different text, same energy
Why? Both are dogmas that NEVER produce the intended result they claim
But they don't work as a comparison. It's apples to oranges
It's like two communists Stalin and Trotskey, fighting against each other for power. Trotskey was defeated, exiled and later assassinated
Communism is fascism under a different name. Every communist country in the past or present has been a fascist totalitarian state
no, fascism is nothing like communism outside of being authoritarian, but fascism is capitalistic for sure.
We might have different ideas of "works" my friend
Of course it works, for the 1%
From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I'm not very educated in regards to political science, and I've just begun my foray into Marxist theory.
you have anything that isn't Carl-"what nationalist"-Tucker ranting on Fox News?
first off, Fascists didn't try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.
And why wouldn't authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.
and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)
Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations
They had labor camps where they used slave labor to further the war effort. Slavery was imposed upon people for whom economic interactions had previously been consensual and free.
Why wouldn’t authorizations like capitalism?
Because it is an economic system based on consensual exchange. That’s why it’s referred to as a “free market” system.
Well, first off, I will remind you that the great slave nations were almost all Capitalist.
Secondly, Capitalism is not based on consensual exchange, and no free market means no government interference, the fact that we have laws against slavery inherently mean the market is LESS free, Capitalism is an economic system where power is mainly held by the capital holders, instead of the workers.
Ironically, Capitalism can function perfectly fine with planed, and authoritarian economies... like it did during Nazi Germany.
then again, I don't expect someone spouting the old Glenbech shit to actually know anything about economic and political ideologies...
Communism works, just look at North Korea.
And there are no outside forces that have influenced North Korea either.
It's hilarious how these tankies are agreeing with your comment not knowing it's sarcasm lol
I'd say it's more like disguised feudalism. We're all peasants for the few kings and queens that have all the money at the top.
I don't think people actually agree on the definition of capitalism itself, I just looked it up and was a little surprised how definitive it is:
If you asked whether capitalism is a political system, at least in my random polling, 2 out of 9 respondents said No.
Yes Marx formalized this opinion.
It's the owners of the land and the means of production that control all of the wealth.
Now it’s the owners of the holding companies who own the owners of all the rest doing the controlling.
Capitalism is now playing 3D chess
Trickle up economics
It's hardly a trickle either.
Shit, even at a trickle pace...
If I somehow got one single penny from every person on the planet, I'd have about $80,000,000...
Do you have a penny to spare for the cause?.. 😂
you know what's funny? you still wouldn't be close to the rich rich people
I know right..
That's a great idea to lift everyone out of poverty! If we all gave each other a penny we'd all be rich.
I caught myself mid laugh before realizing the reality of that statement.
More like a firehose
A firehose in the sky that sucks the rain back in.
Honestly one of the reasons I fell for a pyramid scheme coming out of high school.
A friend invited me and I went to shit on it and get him out, but the main guy's whole thing was "everything is a pyramid scheme, at least here you have the chance to build a pyramid beneath you."
Obviously there were other reasons as old as time, but the argument of "so what, your 'regular job' is already a pyramid scheme you can't win" was pretty rattling to a teenager in 2011.
The difference between a pyramid scheme and a good business is where your money comes from, in a pyramid scheme it comes from the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in a business it comes from selling goods and/or services, that's not saying I agree with big business, but one is profiting off of legitimate customers, the other is profiting off it's own "employees". I nearly got caught into one a few years ago too, until I realized what it was, at that point they had only taken a couple $100 for the interview and sign up stage, i had to block my card for them to never get access again, because even though i didnt complete sign up, thwy kept charging me monthly
What about the stock market? They seem to be pricing companies way higher than they are worth.
Imagine you own a goose that lays golden eggs. It lays one golden egg per year. How much would you sell it for? Probably not one golden egg, but definitely you'd sell if for a million gold eggs. You'd probably settle for maybe 5? 10? 15? Something like that.
Suppose the goose only lays one egg per year now (or none at all!) but it's still young and most people expect it to start laying four or five or even ten or twenty eggs per year in a few years from now. It's impossible to tell for sure how many it'll lay over its life, or when that will happen, or if it will happen at all. NOW how much do you sell it for?
That's the stock market.
A bunch of investors think a bunch of gooses will start laying a ton more golden eggs soon, and they're willing to pay big bucks now in exchange for the possibility of that in the future. This isn't a pyramid scheme or a zero sum game or anything like that. It's just a prediction of the future which may or may not be correct, and only time will tell.
That's the description of the very basics of the stock market.
Now do the derivatives, and let's see why it's gone to hell.
If anything this understates the problem.
True, because it's also a giant Ponzi scheme. We pick up new debt today to pay off debt from yesterday, and we hope expanding GDP and inflation will always offset the difference.
Is there a difference between a pyramid and a ponzi scheme?
It's used so interchangeably these days that I'm inclined to say no, but an oversimplication is that a ponzi scheme is always illegal and is more detailed in its mechanics (as named after conman Charles Ponzi). Wheras a pyramid scheme (or more commonly known: MLM) can actually be legal depending on how it's constructed.
A ponzi scheme involves a conman who scams his customers by taking massive profits from their investors and requires a constant stream of new investors to pay off the old ones. This is fraud.
A pyramid scheme usually involves some type of product and pays huge bonuses to the recruiters at the top for bringing in more people below them from the investment of new people below them. This is taxing uneducated people but can be legal.
TLDR: capitalism is more akin to a pyramid scheme and not at all like a ponzi scheme.
Yes, but most people using the term don't know their defitition, so knowing the correct definition is of limited usefulness.
Ponzi is for Investments that offer high returns, by marking the principal as gains. Pyramid schemes sell stuff, through a pyramid of salesmen. Each one earns a percentage of the revenue of his underlings and is encouraged to recruit more underlings.
That's a good question. Amway is perhaps the architype pyramid scheme. They actually do sell products, but primarily to the marks they con into being 'amway agents' or whatever they call them. The marks, in addition to buying the shit, also kick back part of the proceeds from any sales up the ladder. A ponzi scheme doesn't actually do anything with the marks investment money other than use it to pay off the people in on the con.
Like social security?
You're not forced to take on that debt though, nor is the debt unpayable unless you take on more debt. Some people put themselves into a ponzi-like situation either through poor financial decision making or circumstances so shit that they can't do any better, but the average person doesn't need to take out a loan on a freaking pair of nikes or even a car or house. It's a cultural norm to get a mortgage, but if you do the math it often doesn't make sense to and isn't anywhere close to mandatory. At most you could argue that the US government debt works that way, but even that's iffy and depends on your geopolitical outlook.
I think the point isn't debt my man,l'm thinking OP means capitalism sells you the "if you work hard and play by the rules you too can be rich" as your buy-in. That's the scam.
Exactly. I'm thinking of dying for a few years so I can save up enough to get on the property ladder. Just waiting for a decent grave to come up on the outskirts of town where the rents aren't too high.
It fundamentally is NOT a pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme there is no actual product or service of value and simply extracts wealth from the people in lower tiers. Value, or wealth, is simply the byproduct of an equitable transaction between two or more parties.
Except that you're describing commerce, not capitalism. Capitalism is the idea that the commerce has value, and that one can own the value of the commercial activity. Further, the value of the business is tied to it's growth.
Further, products and services are never exchanged in an equitable transaction between two parties, because capitalism necessitates a third party, the capitalist. The capitalist must acquire products and services from employees for less than their true value, and then sell them to consumers for more than their true value.
And because capitalism demands growth, one or both of those two margins must continue to expand. This means workers must be pressured to work for less and less, which is why the capitalist opposes social services, universal healthcare, and affordable housing. This also means the capitalism opposes consumer protections, environmental protections, and taxes that provide a functioning society that might interfere with their growth.
Now what happens when every producer and consumer is fighting for the same margins, the same advantages, and the same growth? Then the capitalist seeks new avenues for new capital and new capitalists. Building business on ensuring the growth of business for other capitalists. Selling the idea that you, too, can join us at the top of the pyramid, all the while kicking down ladders they climbed to get there.
So no, the system itself isn't a pyramid scheme. It's just an idea that encourages pyramid schemes because it relies on impossible growth, like a cancer eating away at society.
Hang out with small business owners and you'll find lots of examples of two party exchanges. The closest thing to a third party is when there's a contract dispute that involves arbitration or a lawsuit.
This isn't capitalism, this is employment. Employment has been a feature of most economic systems over the past few thousand years. It's important to ignore Marxist theory on employment and alienation because is relies on cherry picking facts to create bizarre and blatantly false narratives.
This sentence also packs in a misunderstanding of how value is generated in all economic systems, not just capitalism. The migrant worker is an economic staple in most (if not all) societies that engaged in agriculture. Take the Roman economy for example, migrant workers lack any property ownership themselves and so must sell labor for money. In the absence of tools, property and seeds, they are not able to generate anything of value for anyone else. A wealthy Roman farm owner has more land than they can work themselves. Without workers, their land has some value, but much less. When the farmer purchases labor for money, more food is produced than was consumed by both parties over that time period. If an excess of food is not generated, then somebody starves. The same thing holds for McDonalds. McDonalds owns a trademark, a marketing organization and a supply chain; all of which are useless without a restaurant. A franchise owner purchases access to the systems that McDonalds owns in order to create a restaurant. The restaurant is useless without a fry cook. The fry cook operates the kitchen gear in the restaurant in order to produce food for consumers. It's important to note that without the restaurant, the marketing and the supply chain, the labor of the fry cook is work very little.
The demand for growth is not specific to capitalism. Economic systems that don't exhibit growth either can't physically support a growing population (with things like food or shelter), or the average standard of living decreases. Both of these situations are difficult to sustain for any political system.
No, fractional reserve banking demands endless growth because debts can't be paid off with interest since the extra money to pay the interest didn't initially exist. Therefore, banks have to lend out more money they don't have so the prior debts can be paid off but in the process they create more debt. But those following loans come with more interest which leads to the insatiable need for more growth in the economy by loaning more money.
Transactions are often not equitable, and most wealth bubbles up to the people on the top tiers.
Markets are not always fair or efficient but that doesn't mean capitalism is a pyramid scheme. It is still very much the opposite.
Unregulated capitalism places all of the power in the hands of the wealthy. Even with the amount of regulation in place, the last 4 decades has irrefutably proven that. The transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% has has been insane.
The only reason we need so much regulation is because people are garbage and if they can gain something for nothing, they will. You cannot consider the pure idea of capitalism without also considering the reality of human nature, that it is inherently going to create a pyramid scheme like situation where the top transfer power and wealth to themselves in the largest quantities they can, in spite of pesky things like laws and taxes.
Yes that is true, and you can view wealth distribution as pyramid shaped, but that is not what a pyramid scheme means. As noted the system is very good at producing massive amounts of commodities, distributing them all over the planet, and exchanging them for your labor. If capitalism did nothing useful it would have disappeared long ago.
Global south would like a word.
Like every proponent of capitalism ignores the cheap labor and blatant theft of natural resources the rich nations need to make the line go up.
It's not the virtue of capitalism that makes our lives so luxurious. It's the suffering of the rest of the world.
I don't disagree. Although it is still not a pyramid scheme.
So the first developed countries destroyed the environment just to get extra virtual numbers shown somewhere, and the rest, even though they directly or indirectly participated, got pollution, slavery, famine, but that is not a pyramid scheme?
So, a reverse funnel system? 🙂
To be more specific, fractional-reserve banking system creates this giant pyramid scheme, not capitalism per se.
Please explain, how exactly is fractional-reserve banking a pyramid scheme?
Because it allows banks to lend out money they don't have and when the banks lobby hard enough to completely remove whats left of the gold standard, the sky's the limit for lending out money. Creating money out of thin air increases inflation. However, in a weird way it impoverishes the lower classes while inriching the elite class because the latter tends to better connected and therefor closer to the "monetary spigot". This allows the elite class to buy up everything(land, companies, lobby/bribe governments)from the top down like a game of pacman.
That's a valid point, though I still wouldn't call it a pyramid scheme.
No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.
Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.
Pyramid schemes don't have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.
A hexagon!
They're zero sum because money is being exchanged, but the person losing money isn't getting anything in return for the exchange. Someone is just stealing from someone else (one person loses, anotber gains). No matter how many people are added to the scheme the mechanics remain the same.
An economy, be it a capitalist or communist one, involves the exchange of money but in exchange for goods and services. Both parties of the transaction gain from it.
Now, it could be argued that the wrong people gain the most from capitalism. That's another argument. But the system isn't zero sum, the way a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme is.
To all your guys huffing and puffing, I'm not passing moral judgment (here) about communism or capitalism. I'm just saying that any economic system involving trade is not zero sum the way a Ponzi-scheme is.
Except people are getting fewer goods and services while paying more money. For some, they're already at starvation wages even when working full-time and they have to dip deeply into credit just to survive.
I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can't really make money if you aren't making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.
Generally the idea is that both parties need to benefit from any transaction if it is voluntary.
When you have to eat and the means to feed ourselves is held by few, no transaction is voluntary.
Of course it's voluntary. You choose what you buy, when you do it, how much and from whom.
If someone held you on gunpoint and told you to buy their product, that would be involuntary.
You can choose what, when, how much, and from whom, but you are still are still forced to do so. Choosing which person puts me at gunpoint doesn't make it voluntary
You can also feed yourself by growing food or hunting. Neither of those are banned, just more inconvenient and you probably have some other skills to sell and buy food instead
I can only do so on land that I purchased. Or on someone else's land I purchased the right to do so on
Then do that, or choose not to.
If I choose not to I die. I can buy the food from someone who already has it, I can buy the right to make my own food, or I can choose to starve to death
Or hunt on public land.
That costs money. I have to buy the right to hunt on public land or I go to prison for poaching
Can I interest you in CWA (Crackers With Attitude)'s Fuck The DNR?
You are forced to buy food, shelter, healthcare, a vehicle (US). You are forced therefore to have a job to pay for these things. Employers know this, and suppress wages with those together, the proverbial gun.
Generally speaking, slavery is also benefitial to both parties, you're either a slave out you get killed. While technically voluntary (because a slave can still choose stand up to the oppressor, even if it's guaranteed to fail) we don't consider slavery voluntary. We can say that in this day and age our work is voluntary, but it's debatable.
You can look to this year how "voluntary" it is when the Hollywood execs literally said they will wait for the protesters to starve so they'd get back to work. When there's such a severe power dynamic it becomes almost no different to slavery, because you, individually, can be effectively forced back to work. The only reason Hollywood protests have any chance to have impact is because they collectively oppose the oppression. The power dynamic is being balanced (or dipped in the favor of labor) by sheer number of protestors / workers.
If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.
They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.
The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.
The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.
This is true but not a necessity of capitalism. Pigouvian can put the destruction of the commons back in that box.
That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.
the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked...
Before Capitalism Humanity drove mammoths into exctintion, and that was a hunter-gatherer society.
https://www.earth.com/news/humans-drove-woolly-mammoths-to-extinction/
What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it's happening.
Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s
I would say this about the stock market
And social security
care to expand on that at least a little? i dont follow.
and with a disappointing lack of giant pyramids, no less!
We need more polloman
DAE Capitalism bad?
omg me
Yes!
I've seen several thought experiments about capitalism, and letting it run to its extreme conclusion.
Sounds like interesting reading, could you please add a link or reference?
More likely viewing. I'll update the previous post in a minute.
And I'll have to stress: it's specifically about anarcho-capitalism, with the explicit removal of any government. You'll keep hearing far-right conservatives insist that the best way to run the market is to keep the government out of it. Anarcho-capitalsim is that thing's platonic ideal, no need to wonder about the government being involved if there's no government involved.
As you'll see, at best that causes way more problems than a governed system causes. At worst, it creates a load of problems that a governed system prevents.
Thanks for the links!
Literally as soon as a society calls itself communist or socialist it turns into a perfect utopia
It can call itself whatever it likes, doesn't mean it actually is that thing.
To all the people here ranting about monetary debt: its not an issue. Money isn't designed to hold value in the long term. It's a feature, not a bug.
It's just really unfortunate for those who play the game as if money were an asset. It's meant for transactions, not for storage.
would you sign up to my pyramid scheme if I was a cat?? 🥺
Your honor I assure you, I am not a cat
Yes
We see your handle, bear.
Yes, but you're going to find the same thing with Communism.
Too many shitty greedy people at the top, too many plebs with fuck all at the bottom.
And while you may be thinking "I could live on a commune, spend an hour a day growing our own food and have all that time left for whatever else I want", you'll quickly find you can't grow your own 65" OLED television or whatever other comforts you've become accustomed to.
The billionaires need reining in, and better distribution of wealth all around the bottom, but capitalism ain't going anywhere.
Communism isn’t the same as a tech-less agrarian society
Communism doesn't mean there isn't commerce, it just means you communally own the means to produce it, and the profits from it
You don't need a 65" OLED TV because you know it's bad for the environment.
So are PCs and smartphones, yet here you are.
Yes it's a hard question how to deal with this. Practically all the consumer goods somehow harm the environment.
We have been consolidating electronics and making them smaller by volume for a couple decades now. Things are getting significantly better at an individual unit level. Reusing and recycling are also good options and should be made more effective. Lowering global populations soon should also help.
This is the ideal shower thought imo. Concise, absolutely true, and something you wouldn't realize on a daily basis (at least not in these terms)
Reminds me of that famous Churchill quote about democracy
Oh I know that one!
— Winston Churchill
Capitalism is anarchism for shitty people.
Anarchism is capitalism for based people!
Some retirement saving schemes may be a pyramid scheme. When the population growth stagnates, there will not be enough young people to produce for everyone.
How so though? This sounds like a statement that's meant to be flashy but doesn't actually hold up. Pyramid schemes are characterized by a) an eventual lack of ability to recruit more people, b) recruitment rather than a product or a service being the driver, and c) a person at the bottom left with nothing, including recourse. Capitalism, even completely free capitalism, doesn't work like that unless you specifically rig it to do so. That's called "corruption".
Global population growth is slowing and predicted to halt within the next few decades.
The modern economy has always relied on an environment of growth, which will now end. In some ways this resembles a pyramid scheme; in the past anyone making investments in the economy could count on a larger new generation of people coming into the market needing to exchange their labor for those hoarded resources. Since this is no longer going to be the case, new entrants to the market are going to be getting a lot less for their effort than they may have expected based on past trends.
Like half the population of the world are poor, every industry is using behind the doors sweatshops. Essentially slavery. While not a perfect synonym, I think it makes sense
in that there are hierarchical meritocratic levels of achievement?
or that there are extractive processes which benefit the top at the expense of those lower?
Capitalism is a scheme where finite raw materials are being extracted and where finite nature is being destroyed - both on the planetary scale; once we reach the end, it will be the end.
That's crony capitalism.
Maybe we have different ideas of "works"
I'm very curious about where that response even came from
I was also thinking that but now i see his comment as a reply to aome other comment so he probably have sent this by accident
You're right, my reply (to a comment) kept failing (looks like all of them posted, but wefwef told me they failed, so I spammed a similar comment multiple times, and it looks like one of them replied to the OP)
Very odd stuff
Capitalism is nothing but allowing freedom and allowing property (in contrast to posession)
actually all economies are zero sum game. down the drain everything is about ressources rather than labour or energy. the later are the means to transforming the resources. what counts at the end is how much you have to survive and thrive.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Whenever two people engage in a transaction and walk away happy, value has been created. A zero sum game would be if the economy were a pie of static shape, where if you have more then I have less. But it isn't like that. The pie grows, and every time there is an equitable transaction with value being created, the pie gets bigger and everyone is better off. That's the opposite of a zero sum game.
The Pie is of static shape, and that shape is all the resource planet is holding, and any part party who has more of those ressources means others will have less, the economy 'wealth" of the british empire didn't grow because it has engaged in equitable transaction with the colonised world (you can never have equitable __ insert something here __ ), they needed more ressources to grow and those ressources were extracted elsewhere
Just the same how the rich countries today aren't rich because they engage in equitable transactions with the poor world, but because the mecanisme that are put in place makes so those "equitable transactions" favours the hoarding of wealth on one side more than the other.
I'm not interested in a back and forth internet flame war about this, so I'll just say you are straight up wrong about economics being a zero sum game. This is a very common fallacy that somehow persists, most likely because we are all being squeezed by our corporate overlords for everything we are worth. But that is different from a zero sum game.
If you're interested then you should google "economics zero sum game fallacy" and learn a bit. Then come back if you are interested in engaging in some more discussion in good faith.
Being zero sum gain doesn't, a pyramid scheme, make.
At this point, "Capitalism" feels as undefined to the left as "Woke" is to the right. It may be bad, but people just put whatever they don't like into a box and call it "Capitalism".
Yeah, no, the left has always had a pretty consistent analysis of capitalism. It comes to different solutions to it, but we all pretty much agree why capitalism is bad.
Yea, I even agree on the analysis that it is bad. The trick is defining WHAT it is.
The definition is an economic system based on private property and market exchange of goods. That's a pretty much universal definition that has been accurate since the 1700s
What is bad about that?
I'm not going to summarize Marx, Kropotkin and the life's work of thousands of other leftist philosophers for you. Go read a book.
You would think thousands of philosophers could summarize something into an elevator speech. but I'll look up Kropotkin since that is not a name I've heard before. Thank you.
Atleast it works unlike covert fascist ideas like Marxism/Communism
"HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT!!"
Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
https://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EmilysQuotes.Com-planet-destroy-beautiful-moment-time-value-sahreholders-sad-greed-people-earth-consequences-unknown.jpg
Communism is covert fascism? Why then did fascists round up and kill communists? The two are wholeheartedly opposed to each other.
Fanatics often hate those that are only slightly different from themselves the most. See Catholics vs protestants.
Sounds like you're pretty fanatically rooted in your belief and we're all slightly different from you 😂
It's ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions...and caused millions more to die of starvation....but it's ok because fascist killed them in WW II..
Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I'm curious why it's "okay" in their case.
The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people's hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it's an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government's socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating "pure communism" or "pure capitalism" is a rube.
There was one promising solution to that which was attempted back in the early 70's: Combine Cybernetics with Socialism.
Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I didn't watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.
My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an "intelligencia" owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.
Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO
I'm familiar with the Venus Project, I don't believe there is much overlap in their ideas.
This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.
Okay I will have to watch your video and get back to you.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can't be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual's buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don't understand what you mean by that people can't own things in capitalist societies. I would say there's maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
Sorry, edit needed. I mean in pure communism, people are denied of their ability of owning a company or whatever. Not capitalism
It's not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I'm not starving or have nothing for my labor.
Ah nice self-unmasking. "I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don't want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty." You are just selfish and afraid.
It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.
Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people...o wait they just euthanize them.
None of those are communism lol
That's because that's what communism turns into...you tankies are a delusional bunch.
Ah throwing buzzwords around you don't know the meaning off? Weak.
Also, none of those ever were communism, so they can't be "WhAt ComMuNisM TuRns InTo"
Ok tankie
This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/"developed" world. Half the world's population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.
Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.
Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.
I take back my words. I didn't knew true communism has never been tried
That comparison doesn't even work
Why? Both are dogmas that NEVER produce the intended result they claim
But they don't work as a comparison. It's apples to oranges
It's like two communists Stalin and Trotskey, fighting against each other for power. Trotskey was defeated, exiled and later assassinated
Communism is fascism under a different name. Every communist country in the past or present has been a fascist totalitarian state
no, fascism is nothing like communism outside of being authoritarian, but fascism is capitalistic for sure.
We might have different ideas of "works" my friend
Of course it works, for the 1%
From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I'm not very educated in regards to political science, and I've just begun my foray into Marxist theory.
Capitalism literally turns to fascism to stay relevant as it makes life really bad for most people. This is such a laughably bad take.
Test
Test
Capitalism slowly degrades into fascism, agreed. Communism is fascist from the very beginning
Define communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism please? I didn’t think you know what these words mean
citation needed
💀
We might have different ideas of "works" my friend
Those two things are opposites…you buzzword concern troll
Opposite likes north and south are opposites? Or opposites like apples and oranges are opposites.
Fascism and communism are both:
But one’s “left wing” and the other is “right wing” so they could be described as “opposites”.
Did this guy really just describe capitalism
Care to explain why you’d think that?
Here, let me help you out.
Fascism
Communism
you have anything that isn't Carl-"what nationalist"-Tucker ranting on Fox News?
first off, Fascists didn't try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.
And why wouldn't authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.
and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)
They had labor camps where they used slave labor to further the war effort. Slavery was imposed upon people for whom economic interactions had previously been consensual and free.
Because it is an economic system based on consensual exchange. That’s why it’s referred to as a “free market” system.
Well, first off, I will remind you that the great slave nations were almost all Capitalist.
Secondly, Capitalism is not based on consensual exchange, and no free market means no government interference, the fact that we have laws against slavery inherently mean the market is LESS free, Capitalism is an economic system where power is mainly held by the capital holders, instead of the workers.
Ironically, Capitalism can function perfectly fine with planed, and authoritarian economies... like it did during Nazi Germany.
then again, I don't expect someone spouting the old Glenbech shit to actually know anything about economic and political ideologies...
Communism works, just look at North Korea.
And there are no outside forces that have influenced North Korea either.
It's hilarious how these tankies are agreeing with your comment not knowing it's sarcasm lol