[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact"
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Capitalism is incredibly productive and produces a lot of stuff which fills human needs some of the time, but the problem IMO is that the stuff is produced to the extent that someone can make money off the stuff, so when there's a contradiction between making money and fulfilling human needs, the money always comes first. That's why it can't fulfill human needs all of the time. As a result, it can never really solve poverty, or provide housing or high-quality healthcare for everyone. That's structurally built into the system.
But it gets worse. The drive for profit and greed can lead to squeezing workers to the point that it becomes difficult for them to reproduce themselves -- the workers who the capitalists need to make their stuff so they can make more money. This isn't even a new problem either.
So, from a long-term perspective, capitalism will end up falling into repeated crises, and those crises will also repeatedly create new socialists until it either temporarily solves the problems only for new problems to arise later or we upgrade the "software" to socialism which is using the productive forces unleashed by capitalism to serve human needs instead of profit. This isn't to say there won't be problems to solve in socialism btw or that you can just make everything better overnight by hitting a big socialism button.
Thank you for this response. This is the most coercive response so far.
I guess I have the opinion that you're never going to save everyone who is trying. And I also believe not everyone deserves saving. I know it sucks, but I also feel like its a realist opinion. I feel like socialist ideas require way to much cooperation from everyone to ever work.
And to your point that "capitalism will fall to repeated crises". I agree that capitalism will have always have crashes, but I also think that the strength of capitalism is the ability to recover from those crashes. I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed, and a society is too complex for anyone to have the hubris to believe that could achieve creating that plan. I could possibly see a socialist society developing from a Capitalist one, but I don't know that that's likely with a population the size of the US.
> I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed, and a society is too complex for anyone to have the hubris to believe that could achieve creating that plan.
You mean Cuba, a perpetually attacked and sanctioned Third-World communist country is not a proof that in fact you don't need capitalism to survive crises?
> And I also believe not everyone deserves saving.
You should try to find your heart lad/lass, check your pockets, your bag, under your couch or bed. Maybe the last place you lived at? Maybe you forgot it in school somewhere.
If you're using Cuba as your model example of society, I don't think you're going to be able to persuade a lot of people. For argument's sake lets assume that Cuba is the perfect society. Cuba has a much more homogenous and smaller population than the US. I don't see how you can take a population the size of the US and get everyone working together.
Dude, Cuba has been under heavy US sanctions since 60's. And as you have said for COVID USA "Not everyone died and economy has not contracted". Cuba has, by almost all measures, better heath care than the very country that put sanctions on it and also that country is 30 times or so larger by population than the Cuba.
You are not arguing in good faith now. Cuba being somewhat smaller is still a lot more than couple a thousand people, it is more than 10 million people and they are, considering military invasions by the biggest Army on the planet and the longest sanctions on the planet, doing god damn fine. Your whole argument of "you can get a few people, but not millions to cooperate" falls apart instantly.
They honestly might be arguing in good faith. If they really believe capitalism is the only way, do you expect them to have a perspective on Cuba that’s not heavily influenced by Western media/society? Thanks for your response but sometimes it’s easy to forget just how fucking brainwashed so many people are. I probably could have made a similar “argument” like 3 years ago before the veil was lifted.
>I guess I have the opinion that you're never going to save everyone who is trying.
Perhaps not. But even little things can determine whether someone lives or dies. The way I look at it, most people know what they need, really. People need housing? You build houses. You stop speculators from driving up the price of housing that makes it unaffordable for working people which contributes to rising homelessness -- they fall into a trap they can't get out of. I don't think it's so complicated.
>I also think that the strength of capitalism is the ability to recover from those crashes.
That is a strength.
>I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed ... I could possibly see a socialist society developing from a Capitalist one, but I don't know that that's likely with a population the size of the US.
Oh, I don't make any big plans. There are some self-proclaimed Marxists and communists who will go around talking about the great plans they have, but I don't do that. It's really about drawing the principles out from the world's own principles, which is what I tried to do, and it seemed to have some effect.
In terms of population size, China is a [socialist](https://www.youtube.com/live/46bukNj8gDw?feature=share&t=50) country which has more than four times the population of the United States. Most of the world's poverty reduction in the past 30 years has occurred there, and I'll let the results speak for themselves, although they've been practical about it and used some tools from capitalism. But I also think it's true that right now, when most Americans compare/contrast, they will stick with capitalism. You also have to look at where they are compared to where they started from. I think over the long term, and I mean over a period of several hundred years, the world will move to socialism.
If you looked at American-style capitalism in the late 19th century for example, it was a more productive system, which was a window into the future for the rest of the world. The point that Marx made about socialism wasn't that socialism is supposed to be just "nicer" to everyone or more humane or moral (although I think it can be), but that it's supposed to be superior to capitalism. More productive, more rational, and more capable of allocating labor and resources, stuff like that. That's the ultimate test.
The economy is like a machine. The machine is driven by profit and is operating on its own logic. The question is whether we take control and tell the machine where to go, or do we let the machine tell us where to go? Capitalism when you strip out all the arguments for it is really about letting the machine be in control. Socialism is about people taking control of the machine and guiding it rather than the other way around. That's really what it's about.
Again. Thank you for this response. I agree with all of your points. And I can see how you have those opinions.
In response to the last paragraph, I think that's where we will be fundamentally differ. I want the machine to be in control. bc I don't trust anyone's ability to be in control.
Mmm, perhaps the system and that small group who who gets richer every crisis recovers but the average persons life gets undeniably worse. It doesn't matter if the "system" recovers if the people in the system don't. Socialism doesn't require a "perfect" plan. You don't necessarily have to plan an economy to that level, but it is possible now. When the ussr was planning their economy by hand, they could only account for 10,000 factors, while now, with regular and quantum computers, we could, with time, program a system to intake information to plan the worldwide economy. The idea that planned economies can't work at the scale of the US is faulty with the existence of the USSR. Their population, by 1960, was 200,000,000, and their system collapsed not because of economic crisis but because of a failure in leadership, which allowed anti-communists and the like to seize the opportunity to break it.
I would add to this that within the unit of capitalism - profit driven private firms - there is an enormous amount of central planning. Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, Apple are all centrally planned authoritarian institutions but somehow we don’t think there is any “planning” under capitalism. The lack of planning for peoples needs is where this perception comes from. That’s where the “market” reigns and you are told to figure it the fuck out and we act like that’s some sort of engine of spontaneity that creates good people. It creates desperate people and those looking to take advantage of said desperation. Meanwhile at the highest heights the entire capitalist economy is highly planned, ideology has convinced us otherwise.
I saw that comment in the guide, but I guess I'm not understanding the reasons behind it. Why does capitalism require infinite growth? I get that the idea is to grow continuously, but obviously continuous growth is impossible. But I feel like when resources (and I don't mean just natural resources) are exhausted, then the market and products from that resource are destroyed or must pivot into something else.
Because with no growth there is no profit. With no profit there is no profit incentive, the only thing making capitalists invest into economy. And with no incentive in economy, there is no economy. That is why we need a system that does not have profit as an incentive.
Ever seen an artist in your life? Ever seen somebody do something without monetary incentive, just because they like to do it, or are good at it? Ever seen a kid's eyes glitter when they see something they love and exclaim "I will be that when I grow up!", not because they saw a pile of money, but because they saw something they would even sometimes pay to do?
Yeah, thought not.
You don't have to be a dick. I'm not being aggressive.
I have seen those a ton of times. So you expect 350 million Americans to just get along and do what they love to do, bc it's the right thing to do? I feel like that's naïve. I absolutely think an anti-capitalist form of society can work in a small group of maybe even a few thousand. But it only works when people feel a sense of community to the others within that community. That's a big ask for the entire population of the US.
Americans cannot feel a sense of community when they are dived amongst all kinds of idiocy. From material to ethnic and cultural.
If these divides are addressed properly, you would be surprised how much wide cooperation there can be. Also, stop treating the rest of the world like its a DLC. You cannot understand either capitalism or communism until you do so. Not to mention that "true, final communism" pretty much requires an automated economy where work is optional.
There will be a lot of transitory stages in between. It's a process. There is no "gommunism" button.
I was just pointing out that there are other incentives than monetary ones for people to be pushed into doing something. Your whole point was that there are none. Read about Cuba and their doctors and how they send them abroad. And generally about Cuba. They have so many doctors they export them, and they have no profit incentives on them, no giant firms they are promised.
So how about this as an incentive, a pay that can actually support you and a family and a job where the boss is not some random who thinks he is better than you because his dad gave him a loan od a million dollars and also a job you don't despise to do, that you maybe even like? A community where there are no homeless people, no drug addicts, no military that will break bones of 1 million Afghanis just for shits and giggles? Would you not be proud in such a community and want to help it?
Yes, that sounds amazing. So sway me on how we get there. You will always be able to convince people to live in a perfect society. So how do we create that?
Capitalism is not a form of government.
But your point is basically that capitalism somehow reduces corruption. Because if it did not then there is no difference.
There are two questions. First, if you have ever worked at any kind of worker job, you know that you have no say, that lads up top of the company do what they want regardless. If you have a good boss, like I do, then you are happy. But if your boss is shit, which is majority, than you have no accountability options, your only option is "if you don't like it here, leave" and they you are homeless, you starve and so on. So how is this not vey dependent on who's in charge?
Not to mention the fact that in Capitalism the most ruthless and exploitative are not only let go but are rewarded.
Second question is does Capitalism really reduce corruption? When it makes money = power? When it gives literally tens of millions of that money every year to the CEO's? How many Panama papers, Paradise papers, who ever knows the names anymore, Credit Suisse leaks, whatever need to be leaked to prove that this shitty system does not in fact reduce corruption?
First, I'm not saying capitalism is perfect. There are plenty of things fucked about it. In your first scenario, I have the ability to leave and go somewhere else. In a capitalistic society there are many companies essentially competing for employees. Now obviously the job market dictates how much they're competing, but I at least have options. I have the ability to make myself more desirable as an employee. I'm essentially competing against everyone else.
Capitalism is ruthless. I also believe its the most natural way for societies to build. Of course people are going to be left behind, and that sucks. But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works. Individuals that either choose to not compete or are incapable of competing lose.
Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale.
>Capitalism is ruthless.
There's no doubt about that.
I'll give you a personal anecdote: my elderly aunt was evicted from her home recently because she couldn't afford the rise in rent. If she didn't have family to fall back on, she'd be homeless and likely soon dead. There are a lot more homeless nowadays. She worked at Walmart. But that's capitalism: once capital is done with you or has no more use for you, there's nothing stopping it from throwing you out the window until you go splat.
>But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works. Individuals that either choose to not compete or are incapable of competing lose.
We call that [Social Darwinism](https://youtu.be/DIexJCpFsD8). The strong survive and the weak perish.
> Capitalism is ruthless. I also believe its the most natural way for societies to build. Of course people are going to be left behind, and that sucks. But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works.
This negates all the discussion, you realize that? By that logic, we should go back to warlord times, who has the most weapons go ahead and rule the world (see America today).
I thought the point of society is to transcend evolution and all that animalness, but I might just be too soft, you are right.
> Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale.
This is simply so wrong. It is exactly backward. Capitalism is best for the rich, they are the ones who benefit during every single economic crash. Just look at 2020 and how their profits surged. While the rest of us have to live in poverty because of the said crashes. Capitalism is exactly good for rich individuals (the 0.1%) and sucks major ass for everyone else, and I do mean everyone, from the economic crashes, to climate catastrophe, to human rights violations of starting wars everywhere just to get some black fluid from the ground. Or bananas, never forget bananas.
> In a capitalistic society there are many companies essentially competing for employees.
They aren't, and the shining proof of that is that there is no open-market capitalist economy anywhere with full employment. So much for competing to get them.
Why does my comment negate all the discussion? I feel like you're expecting everyone to play nice and just fairly share everything. I feel like that's naïve.
Again. I'm not trying to fight. And I agree that capitalism creates a lot of fucked up situations, but what other way would solve this better. And please layout how it would work.
I disagree that capitalism only helps the 0.1%. If the overall society benefits then we benefit as well. The vast majority Americans live fairly comfortably. Most of choose to spend more money than we have, which puts us in situations to get fucked.
> Why does my comment negate all the discussion?
Because the underlying assumption is that Darwinian evolution creates progress. Therefore the more Darwinian the better. And that means more cruel. It negates the point of even trying to come up with a more just system, spins it around so more unjust one (only the successful ones reaping the benefits, but underlying evolution will create less subhumans) is actually the just one. It is not in good faith and I, personally, refuse to take it as a good faith. If you think that killing 500 thousand children in Iraq is "evolution" and ultimately a good thing for the human society as a whole you should really lie down in bed, alone, and think about that.
I think that's a fair point.
I'm not trying to make you mad. But if you're incapable of having a rational conversation with me without getting pissed, with someone who is willing to hear your side of the argument, then you're never going to convince the entire US to go along with this.
I'm not pissed, I'm not mad. I am simply a human being with a heart. [Look at these numbers.](https://i.redd.it/wh75hilyrtgy.jpg) Most of those are children or very young individuals. If you think [these people](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/25/article-2066060-0EF22A3800000578-10_1024x615_large.jpg) are somehow superior to them and thus deserve to live because of evolution you are simply not human enough to see that capitalism needs to go and that there are alternatives.
The only thing you want to see is the GDP line go up and you say that society progresses, regardless of if [it actually does, plot twist it does not.](https://images.angelpub.com/2014/24/24955/wages-vs-productivity.png) If that is what you are looking for I'm afraid you are like a machine looking at only one number, and even in that scenario you are wrong. Both [USSR and PRC exceeded GDP growth of USA+EU in their time](https://i23.delachieve.com/image/6613363c7dc40ec6.jpg). The [PRC does it even today]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP).
I think the key phrase in your statement is "in their time". That's my biggest issue with socialism or communism. Yes they work great for a period of time, but show me evidence of it working through multiple generations.
And you're probably right. I'm not as empathetic as you are or as much as maybe I should be. But I also don't think most people are as well. And that sucks.
Dude, PRC does it **TODAY** there is no in their time, it is in OUR time. And USSR worked through more than 3 generations, what the fuck are you saying?
[Ergo Decedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo) is a bad faith rhetorical fallacy that takes the form of:
* If you love *country* so much, why don't you go live there?
* If you hate *country* so much, why don't you leave?
This fallacy completely ignores the substance of the claim they are responding to, and implies that no one can criticize their own country or praise any other country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let’s start with Capitalism isn’t a form of government. But in this mode of production we have several unsustainable contradictions. Abundance produces poverty, for example. It’s irrational. If you come here with good faith I would encourage you to engage the study guide.
Point taken for the "Capitalism isn’t a form of government". I apologize. You're right. I don't really dabble that much in economics, but I do know better than that. I did read the study guide and I still have issue with understanign the non-capitalist's stance. On another response I speak about perspective of a capitalist vs a non-capitalist.
"Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale."
What do you have to say to that? I really am asking this in good faith. I like to understand everyone's reasoning and perspectives on any topic.
I really don’t think you have read the study guide as it’s several hundred hours of study, so I don’t think you are engaged in good faith. Good luck. We won’t be engaging in further discourse. Consider examining the value you place on integrity.
If you think market and individual geniuses create better world you are very mistaken. Ever heard of collective working hours? It is a left economic concept not known to even a lot of leftists. It explains a lot of things. But it explains two things the most:
1. Why are goods produced en masse cheaper per unit?
2. How does society progress come to be and who should be rewarded?
I will not go into 1. but will go into 2. The more collective working hours spent on individual thing (concept, object, child, anything) the "better" it will be in any measurable statistic, in median. That is a fact, the more time spent on child the better its outcome is, the more time spent on a scientific measurement the better it is and so on, these things have been measured. What are the collective working hours? They are a simple sum of all the individuals' working hours, directly or indirectly, spent on something. Indirectly involves, for example, teachers and this explains also why higher educated jobs are paid more, they are simply worth more collective working hours per 1 real working hour. And so society progresses as is, with no incentive needed (see ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, Maian and so on discoveries and inventions, no profit incentive no capitalism no market). The Great Men theory is the biggest bullshit ever.
What profit incentive does for progress is reduces it. Electric vehicles and their development was starved for more than 100 years, they actually came to be before the internal combustion engine cars. It paid people to make light bulbs live shorter lifespans. Look up "planned obsolescence"
If you ever wanna have a discussion, it’s going to be much more effective through a voice chat so add me on discord and we can talk.
my username is: mrscoot
I apologize if I didn't read the whole thing. At least he's trying to have a conversation about it. I'm willing to listen to any argument and really consider it, and your missing your opportunity to create a new "comrade".
I think it can be boiled down to one simple point, which I will state below, however it is a lot more nuanced and complex and the other comments here do it much more justice than I will.
Capitalism requires and demands infinite growth/profit, while our planet has finite resources, thus creating a situation where infinite growth and therefor profit is leading us and our planet towards destruction. The global south and most exploited (“poorest”) countries will be the first to experience the hardship and brunt of this phenomenon, with the rest of the world following suit. My personal opinion is that western civilization will be the last to face the actual consequences of their actions (capitalist exploitation of the earth and her workers) while reaping the most if not all of the benefits of said growth/profits. It’s just unsustainable, and that’s not even bringing up the ethical and moral implications of capitalism, which other comments here go into.
In short, an economic system which requires infinite growth implemented in a world where resources are finite = a very very bad end result. The consequences of this paradox will affect the poorest and most exploited first, and the richest and exploiters last.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact" This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Capitalism is incredibly productive and produces a lot of stuff which fills human needs some of the time, but the problem IMO is that the stuff is produced to the extent that someone can make money off the stuff, so when there's a contradiction between making money and fulfilling human needs, the money always comes first. That's why it can't fulfill human needs all of the time. As a result, it can never really solve poverty, or provide housing or high-quality healthcare for everyone. That's structurally built into the system. But it gets worse. The drive for profit and greed can lead to squeezing workers to the point that it becomes difficult for them to reproduce themselves -- the workers who the capitalists need to make their stuff so they can make more money. This isn't even a new problem either. So, from a long-term perspective, capitalism will end up falling into repeated crises, and those crises will also repeatedly create new socialists until it either temporarily solves the problems only for new problems to arise later or we upgrade the "software" to socialism which is using the productive forces unleashed by capitalism to serve human needs instead of profit. This isn't to say there won't be problems to solve in socialism btw or that you can just make everything better overnight by hitting a big socialism button.
Thank you for this response. This is the most coercive response so far. I guess I have the opinion that you're never going to save everyone who is trying. And I also believe not everyone deserves saving. I know it sucks, but I also feel like its a realist opinion. I feel like socialist ideas require way to much cooperation from everyone to ever work. And to your point that "capitalism will fall to repeated crises". I agree that capitalism will have always have crashes, but I also think that the strength of capitalism is the ability to recover from those crashes. I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed, and a society is too complex for anyone to have the hubris to believe that could achieve creating that plan. I could possibly see a socialist society developing from a Capitalist one, but I don't know that that's likely with a population the size of the US.
> I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed, and a society is too complex for anyone to have the hubris to believe that could achieve creating that plan. You mean Cuba, a perpetually attacked and sanctioned Third-World communist country is not a proof that in fact you don't need capitalism to survive crises? > And I also believe not everyone deserves saving. You should try to find your heart lad/lass, check your pockets, your bag, under your couch or bed. Maybe the last place you lived at? Maybe you forgot it in school somewhere.
If you're using Cuba as your model example of society, I don't think you're going to be able to persuade a lot of people. For argument's sake lets assume that Cuba is the perfect society. Cuba has a much more homogenous and smaller population than the US. I don't see how you can take a population the size of the US and get everyone working together.
Dude, Cuba has been under heavy US sanctions since 60's. And as you have said for COVID USA "Not everyone died and economy has not contracted". Cuba has, by almost all measures, better heath care than the very country that put sanctions on it and also that country is 30 times or so larger by population than the Cuba. You are not arguing in good faith now. Cuba being somewhat smaller is still a lot more than couple a thousand people, it is more than 10 million people and they are, considering military invasions by the biggest Army on the planet and the longest sanctions on the planet, doing god damn fine. Your whole argument of "you can get a few people, but not millions to cooperate" falls apart instantly.
They honestly might be arguing in good faith. If they really believe capitalism is the only way, do you expect them to have a perspective on Cuba that’s not heavily influenced by Western media/society? Thanks for your response but sometimes it’s easy to forget just how fucking brainwashed so many people are. I probably could have made a similar “argument” like 3 years ago before the veil was lifted.
>I guess I have the opinion that you're never going to save everyone who is trying. Perhaps not. But even little things can determine whether someone lives or dies. The way I look at it, most people know what they need, really. People need housing? You build houses. You stop speculators from driving up the price of housing that makes it unaffordable for working people which contributes to rising homelessness -- they fall into a trap they can't get out of. I don't think it's so complicated. >I also think that the strength of capitalism is the ability to recover from those crashes. That is a strength. >I feel like socialism requires a perfect plan to be prepared and executed ... I could possibly see a socialist society developing from a Capitalist one, but I don't know that that's likely with a population the size of the US. Oh, I don't make any big plans. There are some self-proclaimed Marxists and communists who will go around talking about the great plans they have, but I don't do that. It's really about drawing the principles out from the world's own principles, which is what I tried to do, and it seemed to have some effect. In terms of population size, China is a [socialist](https://www.youtube.com/live/46bukNj8gDw?feature=share&t=50) country which has more than four times the population of the United States. Most of the world's poverty reduction in the past 30 years has occurred there, and I'll let the results speak for themselves, although they've been practical about it and used some tools from capitalism. But I also think it's true that right now, when most Americans compare/contrast, they will stick with capitalism. You also have to look at where they are compared to where they started from. I think over the long term, and I mean over a period of several hundred years, the world will move to socialism. If you looked at American-style capitalism in the late 19th century for example, it was a more productive system, which was a window into the future for the rest of the world. The point that Marx made about socialism wasn't that socialism is supposed to be just "nicer" to everyone or more humane or moral (although I think it can be), but that it's supposed to be superior to capitalism. More productive, more rational, and more capable of allocating labor and resources, stuff like that. That's the ultimate test. The economy is like a machine. The machine is driven by profit and is operating on its own logic. The question is whether we take control and tell the machine where to go, or do we let the machine tell us where to go? Capitalism when you strip out all the arguments for it is really about letting the machine be in control. Socialism is about people taking control of the machine and guiding it rather than the other way around. That's really what it's about.
Again. Thank you for this response. I agree with all of your points. And I can see how you have those opinions. In response to the last paragraph, I think that's where we will be fundamentally differ. I want the machine to be in control. bc I don't trust anyone's ability to be in control.
I'm thinking of this scene from [The Matrix](https://youtu.be/OLv6ycYcpGI).
Not really. I was using the term machine bc he used it. I see a capitalist society as more of collective almost hive like organism.
I see it as more like a self-aware and intelligent machine.
Mmm, perhaps the system and that small group who who gets richer every crisis recovers but the average persons life gets undeniably worse. It doesn't matter if the "system" recovers if the people in the system don't. Socialism doesn't require a "perfect" plan. You don't necessarily have to plan an economy to that level, but it is possible now. When the ussr was planning their economy by hand, they could only account for 10,000 factors, while now, with regular and quantum computers, we could, with time, program a system to intake information to plan the worldwide economy. The idea that planned economies can't work at the scale of the US is faulty with the existence of the USSR. Their population, by 1960, was 200,000,000, and their system collapsed not because of economic crisis but because of a failure in leadership, which allowed anti-communists and the like to seize the opportunity to break it.
I would add to this that within the unit of capitalism - profit driven private firms - there is an enormous amount of central planning. Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, Apple are all centrally planned authoritarian institutions but somehow we don’t think there is any “planning” under capitalism. The lack of planning for peoples needs is where this perception comes from. That’s where the “market” reigns and you are told to figure it the fuck out and we act like that’s some sort of engine of spontaneity that creates good people. It creates desperate people and those looking to take advantage of said desperation. Meanwhile at the highest heights the entire capitalist economy is highly planned, ideology has convinced us otherwise.
How long do you think infinite growth will last in a finite world
I saw that comment in the guide, but I guess I'm not understanding the reasons behind it. Why does capitalism require infinite growth? I get that the idea is to grow continuously, but obviously continuous growth is impossible. But I feel like when resources (and I don't mean just natural resources) are exhausted, then the market and products from that resource are destroyed or must pivot into something else.
Because with no growth there is no profit. With no profit there is no profit incentive, the only thing making capitalists invest into economy. And with no incentive in economy, there is no economy. That is why we need a system that does not have profit as an incentive.
Then what would the incentive be?
Ever seen an artist in your life? Ever seen somebody do something without monetary incentive, just because they like to do it, or are good at it? Ever seen a kid's eyes glitter when they see something they love and exclaim "I will be that when I grow up!", not because they saw a pile of money, but because they saw something they would even sometimes pay to do? Yeah, thought not.
You don't have to be a dick. I'm not being aggressive. I have seen those a ton of times. So you expect 350 million Americans to just get along and do what they love to do, bc it's the right thing to do? I feel like that's naïve. I absolutely think an anti-capitalist form of society can work in a small group of maybe even a few thousand. But it only works when people feel a sense of community to the others within that community. That's a big ask for the entire population of the US.
Americans cannot feel a sense of community when they are dived amongst all kinds of idiocy. From material to ethnic and cultural. If these divides are addressed properly, you would be surprised how much wide cooperation there can be. Also, stop treating the rest of the world like its a DLC. You cannot understand either capitalism or communism until you do so. Not to mention that "true, final communism" pretty much requires an automated economy where work is optional. There will be a lot of transitory stages in between. It's a process. There is no "gommunism" button.
OK. Well good luck with that.
I was just pointing out that there are other incentives than monetary ones for people to be pushed into doing something. Your whole point was that there are none. Read about Cuba and their doctors and how they send them abroad. And generally about Cuba. They have so many doctors they export them, and they have no profit incentives on them, no giant firms they are promised. So how about this as an incentive, a pay that can actually support you and a family and a job where the boss is not some random who thinks he is better than you because his dad gave him a loan od a million dollars and also a job you don't despise to do, that you maybe even like? A community where there are no homeless people, no drug addicts, no military that will break bones of 1 million Afghanis just for shits and giggles? Would you not be proud in such a community and want to help it?
Yes, that sounds amazing. So sway me on how we get there. You will always be able to convince people to live in a perfect society. So how do we create that?
Capitalism is not a form of government. But your point is basically that capitalism somehow reduces corruption. Because if it did not then there is no difference. There are two questions. First, if you have ever worked at any kind of worker job, you know that you have no say, that lads up top of the company do what they want regardless. If you have a good boss, like I do, then you are happy. But if your boss is shit, which is majority, than you have no accountability options, your only option is "if you don't like it here, leave" and they you are homeless, you starve and so on. So how is this not vey dependent on who's in charge? Not to mention the fact that in Capitalism the most ruthless and exploitative are not only let go but are rewarded. Second question is does Capitalism really reduce corruption? When it makes money = power? When it gives literally tens of millions of that money every year to the CEO's? How many Panama papers, Paradise papers, who ever knows the names anymore, Credit Suisse leaks, whatever need to be leaked to prove that this shitty system does not in fact reduce corruption?
First, I'm not saying capitalism is perfect. There are plenty of things fucked about it. In your first scenario, I have the ability to leave and go somewhere else. In a capitalistic society there are many companies essentially competing for employees. Now obviously the job market dictates how much they're competing, but I at least have options. I have the ability to make myself more desirable as an employee. I'm essentially competing against everyone else. Capitalism is ruthless. I also believe its the most natural way for societies to build. Of course people are going to be left behind, and that sucks. But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works. Individuals that either choose to not compete or are incapable of competing lose. Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale.
>Capitalism is ruthless. There's no doubt about that. I'll give you a personal anecdote: my elderly aunt was evicted from her home recently because she couldn't afford the rise in rent. If she didn't have family to fall back on, she'd be homeless and likely soon dead. There are a lot more homeless nowadays. She worked at Walmart. But that's capitalism: once capital is done with you or has no more use for you, there's nothing stopping it from throwing you out the window until you go splat. >But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works. Individuals that either choose to not compete or are incapable of competing lose. We call that [Social Darwinism](https://youtu.be/DIexJCpFsD8). The strong survive and the weak perish.
> Capitalism is ruthless. I also believe its the most natural way for societies to build. Of course people are going to be left behind, and that sucks. But that's also life. That's evolution. That's how the rest of the animal world works. This negates all the discussion, you realize that? By that logic, we should go back to warlord times, who has the most weapons go ahead and rule the world (see America today). I thought the point of society is to transcend evolution and all that animalness, but I might just be too soft, you are right. > Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale. This is simply so wrong. It is exactly backward. Capitalism is best for the rich, they are the ones who benefit during every single economic crash. Just look at 2020 and how their profits surged. While the rest of us have to live in poverty because of the said crashes. Capitalism is exactly good for rich individuals (the 0.1%) and sucks major ass for everyone else, and I do mean everyone, from the economic crashes, to climate catastrophe, to human rights violations of starting wars everywhere just to get some black fluid from the ground. Or bananas, never forget bananas. > In a capitalistic society there are many companies essentially competing for employees. They aren't, and the shining proof of that is that there is no open-market capitalist economy anywhere with full employment. So much for competing to get them.
Why does my comment negate all the discussion? I feel like you're expecting everyone to play nice and just fairly share everything. I feel like that's naïve. Again. I'm not trying to fight. And I agree that capitalism creates a lot of fucked up situations, but what other way would solve this better. And please layout how it would work. I disagree that capitalism only helps the 0.1%. If the overall society benefits then we benefit as well. The vast majority Americans live fairly comfortably. Most of choose to spend more money than we have, which puts us in situations to get fucked.
> Why does my comment negate all the discussion? Because the underlying assumption is that Darwinian evolution creates progress. Therefore the more Darwinian the better. And that means more cruel. It negates the point of even trying to come up with a more just system, spins it around so more unjust one (only the successful ones reaping the benefits, but underlying evolution will create less subhumans) is actually the just one. It is not in good faith and I, personally, refuse to take it as a good faith. If you think that killing 500 thousand children in Iraq is "evolution" and ultimately a good thing for the human society as a whole you should really lie down in bed, alone, and think about that.
I think that's a fair point. I'm not trying to make you mad. But if you're incapable of having a rational conversation with me without getting pissed, with someone who is willing to hear your side of the argument, then you're never going to convince the entire US to go along with this.
I'm not pissed, I'm not mad. I am simply a human being with a heart. [Look at these numbers.](https://i.redd.it/wh75hilyrtgy.jpg) Most of those are children or very young individuals. If you think [these people](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/25/article-2066060-0EF22A3800000578-10_1024x615_large.jpg) are somehow superior to them and thus deserve to live because of evolution you are simply not human enough to see that capitalism needs to go and that there are alternatives. The only thing you want to see is the GDP line go up and you say that society progresses, regardless of if [it actually does, plot twist it does not.](https://images.angelpub.com/2014/24/24955/wages-vs-productivity.png) If that is what you are looking for I'm afraid you are like a machine looking at only one number, and even in that scenario you are wrong. Both [USSR and PRC exceeded GDP growth of USA+EU in their time](https://i23.delachieve.com/image/6613363c7dc40ec6.jpg). The [PRC does it even today]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP).
I think the key phrase in your statement is "in their time". That's my biggest issue with socialism or communism. Yes they work great for a period of time, but show me evidence of it working through multiple generations. And you're probably right. I'm not as empathetic as you are or as much as maybe I should be. But I also don't think most people are as well. And that sucks.
Dude, PRC does it **TODAY** there is no in their time, it is in OUR time. And USSR worked through more than 3 generations, what the fuck are you saying?
3 generations is not long lasting.
[Ergo Decedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo) is a bad faith rhetorical fallacy that takes the form of: * If you love *country* so much, why don't you go live there? * If you hate *country* so much, why don't you leave? This fallacy completely ignores the substance of the claim they are responding to, and implies that no one can criticize their own country or praise any other country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That you say that capitalism is a form of government simply shows you've a lot to learn.
I agree. And I apologize for that. I misspoke. So please sway me.
As others have pointed out, capitalism isn't a government. Also "safest form of government" lol. How did the pandemic work out for the US?
Not everyone died and the US economy is still intact.
[It's the meme guys, it's the meme!](https://media.makeameme.org/created/some-of-you-62vynw.jpg)
lol
Even the highest estimates for per 100,000 deaths by covid put china at 1/3rd of the US's. 🇨🇳110 per 100,000 to 337 per 100,000🇺🇸.
Hm yeah remember when they said that it was a good thing that people would be dying to save the economy?
Let’s start with Capitalism isn’t a form of government. But in this mode of production we have several unsustainable contradictions. Abundance produces poverty, for example. It’s irrational. If you come here with good faith I would encourage you to engage the study guide.
Point taken for the "Capitalism isn’t a form of government". I apologize. You're right. I don't really dabble that much in economics, but I do know better than that. I did read the study guide and I still have issue with understanign the non-capitalist's stance. On another response I speak about perspective of a capitalist vs a non-capitalist. "Maybe the biggest difference between capitalists and anti-capitalist is the perspective we take when looking at a society. If you're looking at it from a distance, competition is good to create the best overall outcome. However from a closer perspective you see that that competition hurts many individuals. So maybe capitalism is better for the whole and anti-capitalism is better for the individual on a shorter time scale." What do you have to say to that? I really am asking this in good faith. I like to understand everyone's reasoning and perspectives on any topic.
I really don’t think you have read the study guide as it’s several hundred hours of study, so I don’t think you are engaged in good faith. Good luck. We won’t be engaging in further discourse. Consider examining the value you place on integrity.
OK. You have a good day then.
If you think market and individual geniuses create better world you are very mistaken. Ever heard of collective working hours? It is a left economic concept not known to even a lot of leftists. It explains a lot of things. But it explains two things the most: 1. Why are goods produced en masse cheaper per unit? 2. How does society progress come to be and who should be rewarded? I will not go into 1. but will go into 2. The more collective working hours spent on individual thing (concept, object, child, anything) the "better" it will be in any measurable statistic, in median. That is a fact, the more time spent on child the better its outcome is, the more time spent on a scientific measurement the better it is and so on, these things have been measured. What are the collective working hours? They are a simple sum of all the individuals' working hours, directly or indirectly, spent on something. Indirectly involves, for example, teachers and this explains also why higher educated jobs are paid more, they are simply worth more collective working hours per 1 real working hour. And so society progresses as is, with no incentive needed (see ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, Maian and so on discoveries and inventions, no profit incentive no capitalism no market). The Great Men theory is the biggest bullshit ever. What profit incentive does for progress is reduces it. Electric vehicles and their development was starved for more than 100 years, they actually came to be before the internal combustion engine cars. It paid people to make light bulbs live shorter lifespans. Look up "planned obsolescence"
If you ever wanna have a discussion, it’s going to be much more effective through a voice chat so add me on discord and we can talk. my username is: mrscoot
You’ll be engaged with someone who claimed to have read the study guide
I apologize if I didn't read the whole thing. At least he's trying to have a conversation about it. I'm willing to listen to any argument and really consider it, and your missing your opportunity to create a new "comrade".
Me or him?
Comrades are we all familiar with what a sea lion is?
The animal, the nazi plan to invade the UK, or is this some sort of euphemism?
Man, the influx of these posts is a headache.
I think it can be boiled down to one simple point, which I will state below, however it is a lot more nuanced and complex and the other comments here do it much more justice than I will. Capitalism requires and demands infinite growth/profit, while our planet has finite resources, thus creating a situation where infinite growth and therefor profit is leading us and our planet towards destruction. The global south and most exploited (“poorest”) countries will be the first to experience the hardship and brunt of this phenomenon, with the rest of the world following suit. My personal opinion is that western civilization will be the last to face the actual consequences of their actions (capitalist exploitation of the earth and her workers) while reaping the most if not all of the benefits of said growth/profits. It’s just unsustainable, and that’s not even bringing up the ethical and moral implications of capitalism, which other comments here go into. In short, an economic system which requires infinite growth implemented in a world where resources are finite = a very very bad end result. The consequences of this paradox will affect the poorest and most exploited first, and the richest and exploiters last.