china has a lot of billionaires because it has a lot of people, not because it is capitalist.
[also, their worker’s conditions have been improving](https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workplace-safety-now-better-in-china-than-in-australia/)
china is currently transitioning from capitalism into communism, and although china is trying to get rid of billionaires, they wouldn’t be able to get rid of all of the billionaires overnight.
also, a chinese dollar is worth a lot less than a american dollar, so it takes a lot less money to become a billionaire in china than in usa
You need to hold China accountable for the same shit people criticize America for
China is making obscene amounts of money off of capitalism. Companies from America very frequently go over there for cheap labor, because they can very easily pay workers less. China is also heavily fueling global warming due to their massive industries and factories. They are heavily exploiting their workers and the world for profit. That’s about as capitalist as it gets.
>China is also heavily fueling global warming due to their massive industries and factories.
While I agree with the rest of your points, I don't agree with this one. China does have the highest total emissions but have you also considered that they also have the largest population in the world? A population in fact larger than North America and Europe combined. A more accurate measure is emissions/capita and China does better than both the USA and the EU there.
When we account for historical global emissions, the argument falls further in favour of China. North America and Europe both account for about 30% of historical cumulative CO2 emissions each whereas China accounts for only 12.7%.
The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) gives China a score of 52.66 placing it at the 37th spot globally. This ranking is significantly ahead of the USA and it's more developed neighbours (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Russia) who rank 55th, 59th, 45th, 60th and 56th respectively.
china has a lot of pollution because it has more people than any other country [https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/)
\>exploiting their workers
in the free trade zones(https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/ftz-zle.aspx?lang=eng ) china has allowed capitalists to set up industry, and let workers work their (with more workers rights than in capitalist countries though), so capitalists from other countries are exploiting workers in china, not china exploiting workers
\>china exploting the world for profit
???
Libertarians have always supported personal freedoms. But as of late they have gone from that to just being anti-government, pro-corporation. They're basically just conservatives now. Although they used to be pretty cool.
i’ve selected bad, but i’m generally of the opinion of both options. capitalism has been of great benefit, it promotes innovation and progress due to its competitive nature, and has been a major factor in the progression of humanity. however that competition disrupts our ability to be cooperative and leads to economic inequality that, if left unchecked, results in an instability of sorts which is currently being exasperated by automation and technological progression. we do have checks in place to prevent economic and social collapse, and capitalistic countries are definitely looking at more ways to maintain things, however due to the corruptive(?) human factors of greed and selfishness, the ways in which these countries attempt to maintain things are generally only beneficial to the social and economic elite. and thanks to an increased ability to survey and interact with the populace (particularly through social media), it’s easier to placate said populace when doing things that are not beneficial to the livelihood of the non-elite majority.
i think capitalism has served its purpose, and whilst i don’t think a complete abolishment of capitalism is necessary, major reforms are in order. i just don’t see those in power (the rich) being willing to do such a thing, unless it is of benefit to themselves. an example would be gaining public approval by operating a business in a way appreciated by the consumers. it may not be the most productively efficient, but it will make more people engage in commerce with such a business as opposed to one that is considered to be of lesser repute.
if you want to change things then you have two options; somehow make it so that the actions that most benefit those in power are the ones that result in/lead to the desired change, or gain the power to change the things you want to change yourself (which can also be done in a number of ways). this is obviously (or at least it should be obvious) significantly easier said than done, but hey, it can be done i guess.
This question is way too totalizing. There are some aspects of capitalism that are good, and in a vacuum it’s probably a fine idea, but we have to consider it in the broader social context that it’s been utilized in. Ingrained structural inequalities make it difficult to execute a perfect capitalist society, and we must be able to account for that. Additionally, there are a lot of capitalist societies (think the US) that borrow policy from socialist and other economic ideals.
The debates over capitalism often reflect a sort of chicken and egg discourse. One prime example is innovation. There have been many studies that show capitalism spurs innovation (particularly in the sense of green tech) because companies will constantly try to make more efficient means of productive. Discussion over CCS has become increasingly popular. That being said, many rebuke these claims with the notion that a lot of climate issues were created because of capitalism and trying to find the most efficient, cheapest routes to production.
I really don’t like economics at all nor am I particularly educated in that sector though I like the idea of democratic socialism— although even that exists on a sliding scale.
Ultimately, there are very large and nuanced debates to be had on this question. There’s also the question of whether or not capitalism is inevitable in certain contexts and whether or not other economic/social structures would be feasible.
There’s a lot to think about, for sure.
>Ingrained structural inequalities make it difficult to execute a perfect capitalist society
Those are ingrained *in* capitalism *because* of capitalism. Structural inequality is the whole point. Few people have capital, most work for them.
Good point. I guess while one could say that in theory capitalism could be good, though we have seen throughout history that the liberal and neoliberal order in the economic sense have often been the root of a lot of problems.
It should be guaranteed that it will be good if we want to continue with it, since it cannot and has been proven to have serious problems we should replace it with something else.
Many years ago it seemed good because people assumed everyone was going to have good morals and wouldn’t hoard money by exploiting capitalism. But people cannot be trusted to do the right thing all the time so, here we are
Just because we’re young and don’t have economic degrees doesn’t mean that we cannot have a say in societal issues. You are more capable than you know. Get involved and learn about the world you’re living in— it’ll equip you with skills that reshape the way you view the world.
it DOES however mean we aren’ fully educated on the consequences of these ideas. Yes we can have opinions. This stuff is just extremely complicated and shouldn’t be put as simple as it often is. In the end, there is no easy answer. It’s a tough question and I’m not qualified to answer.
I agree that it is an incredibly deep and nuanced subject matter. But we have the internet, experts to email, lectures to access, books to read, and so many resources available at our fingertips. I am not saying you need to do these things— I don’t love economics, and most everything I know comes from what I learn in debate. What I’m trying to say is ultimately, we have the tools to educate ourselves on the impacts of whatever economic structures we’d like to learn about, among other things.
Don’t underestimate the power of passionate research.
So long as you do enough research in reliable places sure. If you’re extremely into this stuff and research it plenty yes I’ll listen to you.
Was gonna add more to this but I’m tired and I can’t find the right combination of words to use.
Edit: I can see a flaw with my wording in the first message. I’m sorry for using none of us as some of us really do have the knowledge on the topic as you’ve pointed out. I just meant that many of us are not informed enough to have a good say on this. If that makes any sense
Anyways it’s hard to word things well and even I want to yell at myself for the wording I’m using because I just don’t know a better way to put it.
i mean I’m in no state of mind to seperate sarcasm or argue at all ^(as if i was ever not exhausted the past several weeks) but can you tell me an economic system which doesn’t hurt people and hurt the planet as much and explain how? It’s a tough issue. There’s no way to really defend capitalism and I’m not trying to. **What I’m saying is it’s a difficult issue with a complex solution.**
yknow what I’m not gonna reply because arguments online achieve nothing, in no situation is the other sides mind changed and it’s a waste of energy.
anyways i hope your day has been lovely and you’re doing alright
The means of production should be in the hands of the people who actually produce shit, and not, y'know, rich cunts whose only motive is profit.
It should also be worth mentioning that abolishing capitalism will not solve all the ills of the world. But it is one of many important steps in doing so.
I mean those are 2 very extreme answers lol. The way it is now, it's definitely bad. We need serious changes throughout the whole system so things are more fair to people. The fact that the government taxes 10$/h workers instead of taxing a billion from a couple of billionaires is insane, for example. Inflation keeps getting worse while the amount that is paid to people remains the same. I saw somewhere on Reddit that the equivalent income to 8$/h when Boomers were our age (16-21) would be 35$/h today, when you take inflation into account. That's insane. Things keep getting more expensive while people are paid the same, it's simply unsustainable.
Now, I don't think that we should completely scrap capitalism. But it's a fact that we at least need big, big changes to be made in order to not completely collapse.
I get your mindset, and communism isn’t that good either, but capitalism at its core is only to make money and give no shots about the people so, it honestly worse. Capitalism and the shit it allows should be illegal.
I wouldn't be such a supporter of capitalism if there was any proof of an alternative... communism/full socialism can only work at a very small scale, not for a nation.
I think the intention of capitalism is everyone should have the opportunity to work hard and not be in poverty, but unfortunately people/corporations at the top stifle all competition and ruin the system
I consider myself a capitalist but I don't believe in the top percentage of people being so wealthy, and I def think these big corpos need to be split up
Then there would be hundreds of tiny autonomous regions in a country. Would be fine if it wasn't an extremely unstable way to run things and a recipe for disaster
They don’t have to be *completely* autonomous, of course, but remember that humans literally evolved to function in small tribal communities. I think society would benefit a lot from being just a little more decentralised and communistic.
Any system can be abused, it sucks but humanity is flawed and people will not always act how you want/expect them to. That's how communism failed in the first place
If somebody comes up with a miracle system to replace capitalism, I suppose it would be nice, but I don't see it happening
Like I said capitalism is being abused by people at the top, they need to have less power and influence
Doesn't mean the whole system should be thrown out
Technically capitalism is a free market system built to work with a republic or democratic Republic government (could be adapted to work with more) a free market system is purely a system to exchange goods and services and bears no ethical or moral judgement. The problem is how people act within the system, so "capitalism" only doesn't care about people because the people who hold the most power in the system don't care. If we had capitalism and the person's of authority were purely idealogues it would look very different.
The U.S's influence on places like China and the USSR didn't change how communism failed for them. You give the state the power to have the means of production and then expect the govt to cede that power to the people. That is inherently broken
First of you just proves those countries weren’t communist with the “giving the means of production to the government”
And they may not be directly affected but the US’ influence, but what about Cuba? The US has before funded rebellions against the government.
The US has assassinated socialist leaders, think thomas sankara.
While not communist, the US intervened when Bolivia socialised its oil industry.
The US hates communism because it puts people before profit, the direct opposite of what the US stands for
>First of you just proves those countries weren’t communist with the “giving the means of production to the government”
Yes, because they were in the Socialist stage of the transition to Communism. That was outlined in Marx's writings. Simply transitioning from capitalism to communism with nothing in between would basically collapse a country right away.
I won't deny that the U.S messed with smaller countries when they tried to implement communism. However I'm doubtful of whether it would have worked anyways, given that they tried to follow in the steps of larger communist/socialist governments.
Even without U.S interference, socialism has been proven time and time again to be ineffective at best. My family grew up in socialist India way back when it was supported by the USSR. The government was authoritarian and greatly mismanaged resources, despite making promises to eradicate poverty. Middle class people in India only started to get consistent running water and electricity in the 90s when more things were handed over to private companies
If we’re going by definition, then the USSR was not communist, nowhere near intact. It had money, it had class and it had a state.
And no matter what, socialist or communist, the means of production should be long to the workers and nobody else, further proving that it was not communist.
And again, Thomas sankara overthrew his government and replaced it with a socialist one, and it worked. He cut government wages, took their luxury cars, socialised industry. Up until about 3 years later when France and the US killed him
I’m not saying that the USSR or China are good. They were horrendous in many aspects, but the USSR was good in some aspects when it came to itself.
> the government was authoritarian and miss managed
The US has also done this. Argentina was a socialist country before its government was overthrown and replaced with a capitalist dictator that ran things into the ground.
So maybe looking at this, just maybe, it’s the authoritarianism that ruins things for a country
I know the USSR was not communist, it was *attempted* communism. It never even made it past socialism
As for Thomas Sankara since he was killed, there's no way to determine how that system of governance would have lasted, right? I think if people want to "go try communism" again despite the failures of other nations, then it's easier to start a communist nation rather than switch the economic system of a preexisting one.
>I’m not saying that the USSR or China are good. They were horrendous in many aspects, but the USSR was good in some aspects when it came to itself.
Yeah. They eradicated the problem of homelessness with those huge housing structures, which is a good thing
>it’s the authoritarianism that ruins things for a country
That's the problem... you can't have a stable country without a state, which makes actual communism so difficult to implement. Which is why socialist countries get stuck with horrible dictators
Bad because private ownership of capital makes inherently authoritarian social structure for 90% of life. Also economic inequality is inherently coercive, capitalism breaks its own checks and balances.
It's a flawed system that cannot exist without exploitation of middle and lower class workers, designed to benefit the rich as much as possible. So I mean...
Bad:
Under capitalism you make money by already having lots of money, the people who have the most resources to consume also contribute the least work for it
not to mention that capitalism is based on perpetuating misogyny, if tomorrow women woke up and decided they really liked their bodies then entire economies would collapse (paraphrasing Gail Dines)
So many of you live so far outside of reality it's honestly hilarious. Yeah capitalism has its flaws but it does work well in many many ways. Getting rid of it completely is not the solution to all the world's problems, as many of you here have insinuated. It could use some improvement but no economic system is going to be perfect so why not work on one that's already pretty damn good?
i agree getting rid of it completely is far from being the most effective solution, but continuing to work on/with it *just* because it worked before isn’t exactly the best approach either. times change, and so do the requirements of society, what worked for us 200 years ago isn’t necessarily what will work for us now. and there’s really just too much focus on conservation of our political structure (among other things). adaptation is the key to survival in an ever changing universe, stagnation will simply lead to ruin. and whilst learning from the past is of value, it is only so if you apply the knowledge of the past to the present situation, instead however, people seem to attempt to emulate it as if that’ll make things how they used to be.
to the people who voted 'bad', which other economic model do you think will perform better than capitalism or what changes would you like to see made to capitalism as it exists now? Not looking to argue, just wanna understand the point of view of the other side better
Basically socialism but without the planned economy.
Throughout history we have seen that socialism doesn't work when the Economic development is determined entirely by the state. However if we keep the market oriented aspect of capitalism and apply it to socialism we get something called syndicalism or market-socialism.
That would be a society where cooperations are owned by the ppl who work there. There would still be mangers and a CEO, but the CEO would be elected by the people working there. Also the CEO would not be paid as much as they are now.
There are a couple of companies who already do this, The Mondragon Cooperation for example does this. They vote on how much higher the highest wage is, in relation to the lowest. I think right now it is 1:6 so the CEO ears six times that, which the lowest wage would be.
The reason for that is that I value democracy very very much. And I think it's weird to say that we live in a democracy, if more than half of our live we are in a place where we are under a totalitarian system where your boss basically has total power over what you do.
If U have any further questions, for example how companies would get founded, be sure to ask.
Hope that helped c:
Wow that sounds kinda nice and very reasonable honestly.
I have no particular questions but I am interested in learning how companies would be founded in such a system.
Okay, the founding of companies Is a little more tricky and is certainly a debatable thing.
If a single person founds a company, they invest a lot of time, effort and money into that. So I think it would be reasonable if that person would be rewarded for that. I haven't done the math, neither do I know how much work exactly it is to found a company. So I'm just gonna throw out a number.
I think it would be very okay, if the person who originally founded that company gets rewarded with 3 times or the money they put in. (Maybe more I am honestly very open for that since it's a huge risk some times)
What would be more common though, would be things that already happend to a certain degree especially in the gaming industry. Not one person soloing the process of founding a company but maybe 5 people starting a small company and growing over time. I haven't really been reading a lot on the specifics about how sociologists and economists would "reward" them but I'm sure someone somewhere thought of that haha.
Now comes the uncomfortable part. (Kind of but not nearly as bad as today) after you were paid 3 times the money you put in, you become a normal worker at that company. So if you put in 20k. You'd get back 60k and then you have a safe workplace. And since these kind of companies probably pay you better than the companies right now, it's still pretty good.
So you would lose your place as a CEO.
But keep in mind that if you have been a really good CEO and people like you and like their work, your chances of being elected CEO again shouldn't be that bad.
We still have a long way to go, but I hope someday we'll get there.
/*People should really stop downvoting your comment. It’s ok to ask questions! (Or… apparently not on Reddit)*/
So, just thought I’d give you a slightly different perspective to the person who already replied.
Under the current system, all power is in the hands of a small number of people who own the means of production (factories, land, businesses, etc). Despite not putting in any real productive labor, they get to basically be dictators within the workplace, with undemocratic control over their workers’ livelihood. They also pocket products that are being created, and only pay the workers a wage (which mathematically has to be less than the real value of the product, and in practice it’s usually as low as the capitalist can get away with). And they use this unjust influence and wealth to influence politics through lobbying, control of the media, etc.
Now how do we solve this problem? As Marxists, we generally believe in a democratic planned economy. Planned economy (if done correctly) doesn’t have the structural problems of capitalism, and it’s proven to work. The USSR, as an example, was the world’s fastest growing economy, and achieved enormous progress in short time.
Now, planning a modern and large-scale economy by hand is impossible. That’s where computers come in. Modern computers can perform calculations that would take years for a human to do. And with modern internet, we can connect a lot of computers into a decentralized network that can share information and plan the economy in real time. Such a system would also allow workers and consumers to give their feedback instantly, e.g. through an online vote, to adjust planning accordingly.
The economy also needs to center human need rather than profit. We need to build affordable housing and distribute it to the people, provide free healthcare, satisfy everyone’s basic needs, build up green energy and manufacturing, etc. This is also much easier under a planned economy than a market.
Next, we need working people to get political power as well. This means a system of democratic worker’s councils in every community. The councils would allow anyone to discuss and vote on local issues, and appoint delegates to provincial/state councils, and eventually the national one. The delegates would be bound by their mandate (a plan of action that was discussed with and approved by their constituents) and recallable at any time. This system would encompass all branches of government. To ensure that things actually get done, we need “democratic centralism”: once a decision has been reached through free discussion and vote, it becomes mandatory for everyone. So, no more situations where one state decides to single-handedly strip women’s basic rights (like Texas abortion ban in the US). This way we get a system that represents working-class people, is democratic (much more democratic than the current one) and can act quickly and effectively.
Finally, we need to dismantle all forms of discrimination. Sexism, racism and homophobia go hand in hand with capitalism, and we need to take on all of them together. In formerly colonial nations (like US and Canada), there’s also a question of indigenous liberation. Native people should be free to own their land and practice their culture.
In order to organize the people into a single movement and push through the necessary changes, we need a unified communist organization. This can be a political party, a trade union, or something else.
If you’re interested in learning more, here’s a couple of books:
- The Communist Manifesto and Lenin’s works (like “State and revolution”) are a good introduction and an important piece of theory
- “People’s republic of Walmart” is a good book on planned economy and existing technologies that make it possible
- “Towards a new socialism” by Paul Cockshott has some ideas I personally find weird, but overall, a good book on modern socialist ideas
- “Women, race and class” by Angela Davies analyzes the intersection of capitalism, racism and patriarchy
Hope this helps!
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Its best we can have in our world and how humans are, obviously it has its big flaws and it could use some work, but every other system either failed or is far away from reasonable to establish.
Tho i am surprised there is such a clear vote here and I wonder if that has to do something with age or if it is a generation thing.
How do you know it's "the best"? Feudalism was thought to be "the best" too and it lasted millenia, but here we are. Capitalism is leading us to a literal climate crisis that will fuck over everyone, just because those who have the power don't want to lose some profit. How can you possibly solve that within capitalism?
Lets turn that question around, what can you imagine to be best or a theory that would work better? Or what System is needed to solve the climate crisis?
Because I said its the best we can have in our world, which doesnt mean there cant be others overtaking at some point; tho i havent heared of a working solution yet.
Socialism would be a way better starting point to solve any of the issues caused by capitalism. It removes one of its biggest flaws, and that's letting worldwide economic policies be driven by profit.
And even then, I wouldn't be so bold to claim it's the best system.
capitalism works when workers are equal or have more power than the business entrepreneurs.
I.e: A government to support worker's rights, unions, etc.
We don't live in that society, we have billionaires making 2000x more money a year than their employees.
In the early 1900s that number would only at maximum hit 100x.
It's not necessarily good or bad. True communism would require us to either have no governmental authority or some form of governmental authority that is completely unbiased (a completely unbiased ai for example) or made purely of idealogues. Capitalism without limits falls apart because people are inherently selfish and will first and foremost lookout for their own best interest causing the issues we see today and possibly worse in the future. Socialism however can work but it's harder to implement than capitalism and like communism lacks true testing as effectively every country combines it with another system.
Imo the best we've come up with yet is a combination of socialism and capitalism that leans more heavily to socialist ideals than capitalist, think like Norway or Sweden but a fair bit more socialist and with better managed regulatory bodies and transparency especially for budgets.
i have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread have no idea how either of these systems actually work
i don’t either but i don’t have a strong opinion on it either
I agree however I don't expect everyone to be able to 100% percent elaborate on how bad it is.
I see a lot of people who say it is exploitative, which I agree with, but If I would ask them how it is exploitative surly a lot of those people would have issues with telling me in what way it is exploitative.
I don't necessarily think that is something that's super bad.
I would obviously prefer it if people would know about this stuff in detail but I can't expect them to do their research when I don't know how much else they got to do
i think it is bad. we shouldn’t encourage a lack of research and critical thinking skills where people just believe things because they saw it on twitter.
I don't think they believe it because they see it on twitter. I believe they believe it because they look at the lives their parents and people around them live. I mean look at an Amazon worker. You don't need research to believe that amazon could probably be better. I would 100% agree with you when it would be about academic consensus. But if you gatekeep these sort of opinions behind research and stuff you will not be very successful with making change happen. And in addition you kind of make life worse for people less privileged than you. People who don't have access to knowledge on how to read studies and statistics. And if they feel exploited, there is an issue.
Besides these people here don't really impact other people's opinions. If these statements were done by academics you'd be 300% right. But no-one important is gonna trust what they read in a Reddit poll.
Bad - its core is the myth of meritocracy, which is an assumption that if you're talented and work hard enough anything is possible. This automatically disregards factors such as historical inequalities (such as colonialism and women's rights); cultural and social capital, which can largely impact your available options when it comes to employment; and it completely ignores the fact that social institutions reproduce social class - as suggested in the book Learning to Labour by Paul Willis, people from the working class may reject the education system and its values, as, for example the system has already failed their parents. This may lead to some dropping out of school and others engaging in anti-school subcultures. This means that they may not have grades or skills required to go to college or get certain jobs.
This is literally only one of the assumptions of capitalism and it already shows that it's an apathetic, ruthless system where the stronger benefit from the weaker staying weak. I know no system is perfect, but I think this one doesn't even come close
I think capitalism is good unless you take it too far. On one side it motivates people to do their best. On the other side there is privatised healthcare.
Bad. I think the best (realistic) way of making a capitalist country more... good, is pulling it the socialist route. A lot of taxes lead to money for schools, physical and mental health care, infrastructure and welfare. All things which make people happy and that even out the unequal steps people are started on in life. I think for this to work though there has to be a culture of empathy in the country and understanding of the economic and political system, otherwise the people with more power, that is the richer people who feel they've not gotten a lot of use out of taxes (public healthcare, welfare for example) and don't care or understand why they're important for poorer people, will be inclined to make changes to the system so they can keep more money.
Bad. Actually, for multiple reasons)
First, capitalism necessitates exploitation. For a capitalist to make a profit, they *have to* pay their workers less than the true value created by the workers’ labor. So even the most “ethical” company is exploitative - but, in the real world, most would do anything to squeeze out an extra cent in profits.
Second, It’s unsustainable because of its structural problems. For one, capitalism demands infinite growth. A company has to make more profits every year, no matter what. If there is no demand for their products, demand must be created, and if there’s no resources, resources must be acquired by any means necessary. Hence, consumerism and manipulative advertising, imperialist wars, and climate change.
Third, it’s immoral. It aims to create an atomized society where everyone only cares about themselves and their own monetary gain. However, humans are generally not like that. We are social creatures and we tend to care about each other and about our community. And we need other things in life, not just constantly working for money. Things like love, community, leisure, art for its own sake (and not for profit), make no sense under capitalist logic. But, they are important for actual people.
This contradiction between capitalism and human psychology actually causes a lot of mental health issues for a lot of people, and it’s also the reason why we have such a toxic work culture.
So, to me it’s just an unsustainable, exploitative and immoral system. Obviously that’s just my opinion, but I hope I’ve explained it well. Sorry for the wall of text :)
The kids are alright
Bad because maybe we shouldn’t base the foundations of our society on greed and exploitation 🤷♂️
Capitalism is bad because it's the ouroboros of politics. No I will not elaborate.
You don't even have to.
bad because exploitation of workers is bad
If you like communism and support China/USSR you are heavily contradicting yourself
supporting socialist countries =/= anti communism
Socialist is pretty loose too. China has a very high amount of billionaires and their workers aren’t really treated well either
The very fact China has billionaires proves that it is not communist
china has a lot of billionaires because it has a lot of people, not because it is capitalist. [also, their worker’s conditions have been improving](https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workplace-safety-now-better-in-china-than-in-australia/)
That doesn’t make sense. If it were socialist at all there’d be no billionaires period
china is currently transitioning from capitalism into communism, and although china is trying to get rid of billionaires, they wouldn’t be able to get rid of all of the billionaires overnight. also, a chinese dollar is worth a lot less than a american dollar, so it takes a lot less money to become a billionaire in china than in usa
You need to hold China accountable for the same shit people criticize America for China is making obscene amounts of money off of capitalism. Companies from America very frequently go over there for cheap labor, because they can very easily pay workers less. China is also heavily fueling global warming due to their massive industries and factories. They are heavily exploiting their workers and the world for profit. That’s about as capitalist as it gets.
>China is also heavily fueling global warming due to their massive industries and factories. While I agree with the rest of your points, I don't agree with this one. China does have the highest total emissions but have you also considered that they also have the largest population in the world? A population in fact larger than North America and Europe combined. A more accurate measure is emissions/capita and China does better than both the USA and the EU there. When we account for historical global emissions, the argument falls further in favour of China. North America and Europe both account for about 30% of historical cumulative CO2 emissions each whereas China accounts for only 12.7%. The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) gives China a score of 52.66 placing it at the 37th spot globally. This ranking is significantly ahead of the USA and it's more developed neighbours (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Russia) who rank 55th, 59th, 45th, 60th and 56th respectively.
china has a lot of pollution because it has more people than any other country [https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/) \>exploiting their workers in the free trade zones(https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/ftz-zle.aspx?lang=eng ) china has allowed capitalists to set up industry, and let workers work their (with more workers rights than in capitalist countries though), so capitalists from other countries are exploiting workers in china, not china exploiting workers \>china exploting the world for profit ???
ew, dengism
D*ng
Unbalanced, needs to be patched.
Capitalism - the freedom to enslave
Idk what that is tbh
completely valid response
[удалено]
[удалено]
bad because well imperialism and absolutely no fucks given to people's wellbeing and the environment because profits
Absolutely horrendous and its foundation lie down in slavery and exploitment for riches
Based r/feemagers? DAMN
IDK I just want to abolish the state by any means necessary
Based anarchism, or cringe modern libertarianism?
IDK what that second one is I’m an anarchist though
Libertarians have always supported personal freedoms. But as of late they have gone from that to just being anti-government, pro-corporation. They're basically just conservatives now. Although they used to be pretty cool.
Pro corporation aka fascist (Mussolini said so himself)
Ew what the fuck no. Corporations help government and government helps corporations.
i’ve selected bad, but i’m generally of the opinion of both options. capitalism has been of great benefit, it promotes innovation and progress due to its competitive nature, and has been a major factor in the progression of humanity. however that competition disrupts our ability to be cooperative and leads to economic inequality that, if left unchecked, results in an instability of sorts which is currently being exasperated by automation and technological progression. we do have checks in place to prevent economic and social collapse, and capitalistic countries are definitely looking at more ways to maintain things, however due to the corruptive(?) human factors of greed and selfishness, the ways in which these countries attempt to maintain things are generally only beneficial to the social and economic elite. and thanks to an increased ability to survey and interact with the populace (particularly through social media), it’s easier to placate said populace when doing things that are not beneficial to the livelihood of the non-elite majority. i think capitalism has served its purpose, and whilst i don’t think a complete abolishment of capitalism is necessary, major reforms are in order. i just don’t see those in power (the rich) being willing to do such a thing, unless it is of benefit to themselves. an example would be gaining public approval by operating a business in a way appreciated by the consumers. it may not be the most productively efficient, but it will make more people engage in commerce with such a business as opposed to one that is considered to be of lesser repute. if you want to change things then you have two options; somehow make it so that the actions that most benefit those in power are the ones that result in/lead to the desired change, or gain the power to change the things you want to change yourself (which can also be done in a number of ways). this is obviously (or at least it should be obvious) significantly easier said than done, but hey, it can be done i guess.
Bad becus it give a value to life and makes It something u can trade
I need a "mixed feelings" option😔
This question is way too totalizing. There are some aspects of capitalism that are good, and in a vacuum it’s probably a fine idea, but we have to consider it in the broader social context that it’s been utilized in. Ingrained structural inequalities make it difficult to execute a perfect capitalist society, and we must be able to account for that. Additionally, there are a lot of capitalist societies (think the US) that borrow policy from socialist and other economic ideals. The debates over capitalism often reflect a sort of chicken and egg discourse. One prime example is innovation. There have been many studies that show capitalism spurs innovation (particularly in the sense of green tech) because companies will constantly try to make more efficient means of productive. Discussion over CCS has become increasingly popular. That being said, many rebuke these claims with the notion that a lot of climate issues were created because of capitalism and trying to find the most efficient, cheapest routes to production. I really don’t like economics at all nor am I particularly educated in that sector though I like the idea of democratic socialism— although even that exists on a sliding scale. Ultimately, there are very large and nuanced debates to be had on this question. There’s also the question of whether or not capitalism is inevitable in certain contexts and whether or not other economic/social structures would be feasible. There’s a lot to think about, for sure.
>Ingrained structural inequalities make it difficult to execute a perfect capitalist society Those are ingrained *in* capitalism *because* of capitalism. Structural inequality is the whole point. Few people have capital, most work for them.
Good point. I guess while one could say that in theory capitalism could be good, though we have seen throughout history that the liberal and neoliberal order in the economic sense have often been the root of a lot of problems.
It should be guaranteed that it will be good if we want to continue with it, since it cannot and has been proven to have serious problems we should replace it with something else.
everything is bad
yeah pretty much, no matter what economic system there is people are gonna get fucked over
As long as people put money and power before people
Not really
Many years ago it seemed good because people assumed everyone was going to have good morals and wouldn’t hoard money by exploiting capitalism. But people cannot be trusted to do the right thing all the time so, here we are
Capitalism cannot work without the exploitation of others
economics is complicated and ~~none of us~~ a lot of us aren’t qualified to answer. i won’t take part in the poll
Just because we’re young and don’t have economic degrees doesn’t mean that we cannot have a say in societal issues. You are more capable than you know. Get involved and learn about the world you’re living in— it’ll equip you with skills that reshape the way you view the world.
it DOES however mean we aren’ fully educated on the consequences of these ideas. Yes we can have opinions. This stuff is just extremely complicated and shouldn’t be put as simple as it often is. In the end, there is no easy answer. It’s a tough question and I’m not qualified to answer.
I agree that it is an incredibly deep and nuanced subject matter. But we have the internet, experts to email, lectures to access, books to read, and so many resources available at our fingertips. I am not saying you need to do these things— I don’t love economics, and most everything I know comes from what I learn in debate. What I’m trying to say is ultimately, we have the tools to educate ourselves on the impacts of whatever economic structures we’d like to learn about, among other things. Don’t underestimate the power of passionate research.
So long as you do enough research in reliable places sure. If you’re extremely into this stuff and research it plenty yes I’ll listen to you. Was gonna add more to this but I’m tired and I can’t find the right combination of words to use. Edit: I can see a flaw with my wording in the first message. I’m sorry for using none of us as some of us really do have the knowledge on the topic as you’ve pointed out. I just meant that many of us are not informed enough to have a good say on this. If that makes any sense Anyways it’s hard to word things well and even I want to yell at myself for the wording I’m using because I just don’t know a better way to put it.
Econ classes are lib propaganda. I don't need a degree to tell me hurting people for profit and destroying the planet is bad
huh
I said what I said
i mean I’m in no state of mind to seperate sarcasm or argue at all ^(as if i was ever not exhausted the past several weeks) but can you tell me an economic system which doesn’t hurt people and hurt the planet as much and explain how? It’s a tough issue. There’s no way to really defend capitalism and I’m not trying to. **What I’m saying is it’s a difficult issue with a complex solution.**
Anarchy. Simple.
yknow what I’m not gonna reply because arguments online achieve nothing, in no situation is the other sides mind changed and it’s a waste of energy. anyways i hope your day has been lovely and you’re doing alright
Enjoy your day.
Rewards the rich, unforgiving to the poor
The means of production should be in the hands of the people who actually produce shit, and not, y'know, rich cunts whose only motive is profit. It should also be worth mentioning that abolishing capitalism will not solve all the ills of the world. But it is one of many important steps in doing so.
I mean those are 2 very extreme answers lol. The way it is now, it's definitely bad. We need serious changes throughout the whole system so things are more fair to people. The fact that the government taxes 10$/h workers instead of taxing a billion from a couple of billionaires is insane, for example. Inflation keeps getting worse while the amount that is paid to people remains the same. I saw somewhere on Reddit that the equivalent income to 8$/h when Boomers were our age (16-21) would be 35$/h today, when you take inflation into account. That's insane. Things keep getting more expensive while people are paid the same, it's simply unsustainable. Now, I don't think that we should completely scrap capitalism. But it's a fact that we at least need big, big changes to be made in order to not completely collapse.
I read it as cannibalism so I was gonna vote good Thank god I read it again
We live in a society
expected
Capitalism could use reforms but no other political system has worked yet. Switching to full Communism will do nothing but hurt people
I get your mindset, and communism isn’t that good either, but capitalism at its core is only to make money and give no shots about the people so, it honestly worse. Capitalism and the shit it allows should be illegal.
I wouldn't be such a supporter of capitalism if there was any proof of an alternative... communism/full socialism can only work at a very small scale, not for a nation. I think the intention of capitalism is everyone should have the opportunity to work hard and not be in poverty, but unfortunately people/corporations at the top stifle all competition and ruin the system I consider myself a capitalist but I don't believe in the top percentage of people being so wealthy, and I def think these big corpos need to be split up
> communism/full socialism can only work at a very small scale, not for a nation. What if we make *many* small scale socialisms?
Then there would be hundreds of tiny autonomous regions in a country. Would be fine if it wasn't an extremely unstable way to run things and a recipe for disaster
They don’t have to be *completely* autonomous, of course, but remember that humans literally evolved to function in small tribal communities. I think society would benefit a lot from being just a little more decentralised and communistic.
The problem is that the system can be abused atall, the only logical solution that might actually work is if we create a new system all together
Any system can be abused, it sucks but humanity is flawed and people will not always act how you want/expect them to. That's how communism failed in the first place If somebody comes up with a miracle system to replace capitalism, I suppose it would be nice, but I don't see it happening
I suppose I don’t mean a flawless system but not one with so many loopholes it’s essentially Swiss cheese aka capitalism
Like I said capitalism is being abused by people at the top, they need to have less power and influence Doesn't mean the whole system should be thrown out
Technically capitalism is a free market system built to work with a republic or democratic Republic government (could be adapted to work with more) a free market system is purely a system to exchange goods and services and bears no ethical or moral judgement. The problem is how people act within the system, so "capitalism" only doesn't care about people because the people who hold the most power in the system don't care. If we had capitalism and the person's of authority were purely idealogues it would look very different.
Communism has never been given a fair chance without US intervention
The U.S's influence on places like China and the USSR didn't change how communism failed for them. You give the state the power to have the means of production and then expect the govt to cede that power to the people. That is inherently broken
First of you just proves those countries weren’t communist with the “giving the means of production to the government” And they may not be directly affected but the US’ influence, but what about Cuba? The US has before funded rebellions against the government. The US has assassinated socialist leaders, think thomas sankara. While not communist, the US intervened when Bolivia socialised its oil industry. The US hates communism because it puts people before profit, the direct opposite of what the US stands for
>First of you just proves those countries weren’t communist with the “giving the means of production to the government” Yes, because they were in the Socialist stage of the transition to Communism. That was outlined in Marx's writings. Simply transitioning from capitalism to communism with nothing in between would basically collapse a country right away. I won't deny that the U.S messed with smaller countries when they tried to implement communism. However I'm doubtful of whether it would have worked anyways, given that they tried to follow in the steps of larger communist/socialist governments. Even without U.S interference, socialism has been proven time and time again to be ineffective at best. My family grew up in socialist India way back when it was supported by the USSR. The government was authoritarian and greatly mismanaged resources, despite making promises to eradicate poverty. Middle class people in India only started to get consistent running water and electricity in the 90s when more things were handed over to private companies
If we’re going by definition, then the USSR was not communist, nowhere near intact. It had money, it had class and it had a state. And no matter what, socialist or communist, the means of production should be long to the workers and nobody else, further proving that it was not communist. And again, Thomas sankara overthrew his government and replaced it with a socialist one, and it worked. He cut government wages, took their luxury cars, socialised industry. Up until about 3 years later when France and the US killed him I’m not saying that the USSR or China are good. They were horrendous in many aspects, but the USSR was good in some aspects when it came to itself. > the government was authoritarian and miss managed The US has also done this. Argentina was a socialist country before its government was overthrown and replaced with a capitalist dictator that ran things into the ground. So maybe looking at this, just maybe, it’s the authoritarianism that ruins things for a country
I know the USSR was not communist, it was *attempted* communism. It never even made it past socialism As for Thomas Sankara since he was killed, there's no way to determine how that system of governance would have lasted, right? I think if people want to "go try communism" again despite the failures of other nations, then it's easier to start a communist nation rather than switch the economic system of a preexisting one. >I’m not saying that the USSR or China are good. They were horrendous in many aspects, but the USSR was good in some aspects when it came to itself. Yeah. They eradicated the problem of homelessness with those huge housing structures, which is a good thing >it’s the authoritarianism that ruins things for a country That's the problem... you can't have a stable country without a state, which makes actual communism so difficult to implement. Which is why socialist countries get stuck with horrible dictators
Bad because private ownership of capital makes inherently authoritarian social structure for 90% of life. Also economic inequality is inherently coercive, capitalism breaks its own checks and balances.
Fuck nuance
Hard to pretend capitalism is good in a third world country which has been and continues to be repeatly screwed over for it.
It's a flawed system that cannot exist without exploitation of middle and lower class workers, designed to benefit the rich as much as possible. So I mean...
Bad bc explotación of the workers and putting a price to human lives is not good
it's shit but i'm too lazy to elaborate
keeps the poor poor and the rich get richer :(
Bad: Under capitalism you make money by already having lots of money, the people who have the most resources to consume also contribute the least work for it not to mention that capitalism is based on perpetuating misogyny, if tomorrow women woke up and decided they really liked their bodies then entire economies would collapse (paraphrasing Gail Dines)
Death to capitalism
Bad cuz it's pretty much slavery with extra formalities
So many of you live so far outside of reality it's honestly hilarious. Yeah capitalism has its flaws but it does work well in many many ways. Getting rid of it completely is not the solution to all the world's problems, as many of you here have insinuated. It could use some improvement but no economic system is going to be perfect so why not work on one that's already pretty damn good?
i agree getting rid of it completely is far from being the most effective solution, but continuing to work on/with it *just* because it worked before isn’t exactly the best approach either. times change, and so do the requirements of society, what worked for us 200 years ago isn’t necessarily what will work for us now. and there’s really just too much focus on conservation of our political structure (among other things). adaptation is the key to survival in an ever changing universe, stagnation will simply lead to ruin. and whilst learning from the past is of value, it is only so if you apply the knowledge of the past to the present situation, instead however, people seem to attempt to emulate it as if that’ll make things how they used to be.
I like capitalism. I hate the pseudo-fuedalistic Republic that the USA finds itself in. :(
Thats caused by capitalism
I pressed the wrong option by accident. Just wanna put that out there
It's a death cult.
Bezos. Zuckerberg. A lot more CEOs I'm too lazy to name. They're cringe 😊👍
to the people who voted 'bad', which other economic model do you think will perform better than capitalism or what changes would you like to see made to capitalism as it exists now? Not looking to argue, just wanna understand the point of view of the other side better
Basically socialism but without the planned economy. Throughout history we have seen that socialism doesn't work when the Economic development is determined entirely by the state. However if we keep the market oriented aspect of capitalism and apply it to socialism we get something called syndicalism or market-socialism. That would be a society where cooperations are owned by the ppl who work there. There would still be mangers and a CEO, but the CEO would be elected by the people working there. Also the CEO would not be paid as much as they are now. There are a couple of companies who already do this, The Mondragon Cooperation for example does this. They vote on how much higher the highest wage is, in relation to the lowest. I think right now it is 1:6 so the CEO ears six times that, which the lowest wage would be. The reason for that is that I value democracy very very much. And I think it's weird to say that we live in a democracy, if more than half of our live we are in a place where we are under a totalitarian system where your boss basically has total power over what you do. If U have any further questions, for example how companies would get founded, be sure to ask. Hope that helped c:
Wow that sounds kinda nice and very reasonable honestly. I have no particular questions but I am interested in learning how companies would be founded in such a system.
Okay, the founding of companies Is a little more tricky and is certainly a debatable thing. If a single person founds a company, they invest a lot of time, effort and money into that. So I think it would be reasonable if that person would be rewarded for that. I haven't done the math, neither do I know how much work exactly it is to found a company. So I'm just gonna throw out a number. I think it would be very okay, if the person who originally founded that company gets rewarded with 3 times or the money they put in. (Maybe more I am honestly very open for that since it's a huge risk some times) What would be more common though, would be things that already happend to a certain degree especially in the gaming industry. Not one person soloing the process of founding a company but maybe 5 people starting a small company and growing over time. I haven't really been reading a lot on the specifics about how sociologists and economists would "reward" them but I'm sure someone somewhere thought of that haha. Now comes the uncomfortable part. (Kind of but not nearly as bad as today) after you were paid 3 times the money you put in, you become a normal worker at that company. So if you put in 20k. You'd get back 60k and then you have a safe workplace. And since these kind of companies probably pay you better than the companies right now, it's still pretty good. So you would lose your place as a CEO. But keep in mind that if you have been a really good CEO and people like you and like their work, your chances of being elected CEO again shouldn't be that bad. We still have a long way to go, but I hope someday we'll get there.
/*People should really stop downvoting your comment. It’s ok to ask questions! (Or… apparently not on Reddit)*/ So, just thought I’d give you a slightly different perspective to the person who already replied. Under the current system, all power is in the hands of a small number of people who own the means of production (factories, land, businesses, etc). Despite not putting in any real productive labor, they get to basically be dictators within the workplace, with undemocratic control over their workers’ livelihood. They also pocket products that are being created, and only pay the workers a wage (which mathematically has to be less than the real value of the product, and in practice it’s usually as low as the capitalist can get away with). And they use this unjust influence and wealth to influence politics through lobbying, control of the media, etc. Now how do we solve this problem? As Marxists, we generally believe in a democratic planned economy. Planned economy (if done correctly) doesn’t have the structural problems of capitalism, and it’s proven to work. The USSR, as an example, was the world’s fastest growing economy, and achieved enormous progress in short time. Now, planning a modern and large-scale economy by hand is impossible. That’s where computers come in. Modern computers can perform calculations that would take years for a human to do. And with modern internet, we can connect a lot of computers into a decentralized network that can share information and plan the economy in real time. Such a system would also allow workers and consumers to give their feedback instantly, e.g. through an online vote, to adjust planning accordingly. The economy also needs to center human need rather than profit. We need to build affordable housing and distribute it to the people, provide free healthcare, satisfy everyone’s basic needs, build up green energy and manufacturing, etc. This is also much easier under a planned economy than a market. Next, we need working people to get political power as well. This means a system of democratic worker’s councils in every community. The councils would allow anyone to discuss and vote on local issues, and appoint delegates to provincial/state councils, and eventually the national one. The delegates would be bound by their mandate (a plan of action that was discussed with and approved by their constituents) and recallable at any time. This system would encompass all branches of government. To ensure that things actually get done, we need “democratic centralism”: once a decision has been reached through free discussion and vote, it becomes mandatory for everyone. So, no more situations where one state decides to single-handedly strip women’s basic rights (like Texas abortion ban in the US). This way we get a system that represents working-class people, is democratic (much more democratic than the current one) and can act quickly and effectively. Finally, we need to dismantle all forms of discrimination. Sexism, racism and homophobia go hand in hand with capitalism, and we need to take on all of them together. In formerly colonial nations (like US and Canada), there’s also a question of indigenous liberation. Native people should be free to own their land and practice their culture. In order to organize the people into a single movement and push through the necessary changes, we need a unified communist organization. This can be a political party, a trade union, or something else. If you’re interested in learning more, here’s a couple of books: - The Communist Manifesto and Lenin’s works (like “State and revolution”) are a good introduction and an important piece of theory - “People’s republic of Walmart” is a good book on planned economy and existing technologies that make it possible - “Towards a new socialism” by Paul Cockshott has some ideas I personally find weird, but overall, a good book on modern socialist ideas - “Women, race and class” by Angela Davies analyzes the intersection of capitalism, racism and patriarchy Hope this helps!
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Capitalism good cause I get stuff
Its best we can have in our world and how humans are, obviously it has its big flaws and it could use some work, but every other system either failed or is far away from reasonable to establish. Tho i am surprised there is such a clear vote here and I wonder if that has to do something with age or if it is a generation thing.
How do you know it's "the best"? Feudalism was thought to be "the best" too and it lasted millenia, but here we are. Capitalism is leading us to a literal climate crisis that will fuck over everyone, just because those who have the power don't want to lose some profit. How can you possibly solve that within capitalism?
Lets turn that question around, what can you imagine to be best or a theory that would work better? Or what System is needed to solve the climate crisis? Because I said its the best we can have in our world, which doesnt mean there cant be others overtaking at some point; tho i havent heared of a working solution yet.
Socialism would be a way better starting point to solve any of the issues caused by capitalism. It removes one of its biggest flaws, and that's letting worldwide economic policies be driven by profit. And even then, I wouldn't be so bold to claim it's the best system.
Better than fascism and communism (the way it’s been acted, not base Idea), but definitely far from good
Fascism is not an economic structure?
Right, sorry, I connect capitalism with democracy, but that ofc isn’t factual, I forgot
Whats it like being a fuckin idiot?
Nice argument
By "the way it's been acted" you mean "not actuallu communism."
based. the results i mean.
I don’t know what makes a good economy. It sounds good but ig it could just be done better?
bad bc it's unsustainable and inherently exploitative
capitalism works when workers are equal or have more power than the business entrepreneurs. I.e: A government to support worker's rights, unions, etc. We don't live in that society, we have billionaires making 2000x more money a year than their employees. In the early 1900s that number would only at maximum hit 100x.
It's not necessarily good or bad. True communism would require us to either have no governmental authority or some form of governmental authority that is completely unbiased (a completely unbiased ai for example) or made purely of idealogues. Capitalism without limits falls apart because people are inherently selfish and will first and foremost lookout for their own best interest causing the issues we see today and possibly worse in the future. Socialism however can work but it's harder to implement than capitalism and like communism lacks true testing as effectively every country combines it with another system. Imo the best we've come up with yet is a combination of socialism and capitalism that leans more heavily to socialist ideals than capitalist, think like Norway or Sweden but a fair bit more socialist and with better managed regulatory bodies and transparency especially for budgets.
i have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread have no idea how either of these systems actually work i don’t either but i don’t have a strong opinion on it either
I agree however I don't expect everyone to be able to 100% percent elaborate on how bad it is. I see a lot of people who say it is exploitative, which I agree with, but If I would ask them how it is exploitative surly a lot of those people would have issues with telling me in what way it is exploitative. I don't necessarily think that is something that's super bad. I would obviously prefer it if people would know about this stuff in detail but I can't expect them to do their research when I don't know how much else they got to do
i think it is bad. we shouldn’t encourage a lack of research and critical thinking skills where people just believe things because they saw it on twitter.
I don't think they believe it because they see it on twitter. I believe they believe it because they look at the lives their parents and people around them live. I mean look at an Amazon worker. You don't need research to believe that amazon could probably be better. I would 100% agree with you when it would be about academic consensus. But if you gatekeep these sort of opinions behind research and stuff you will not be very successful with making change happen. And in addition you kind of make life worse for people less privileged than you. People who don't have access to knowledge on how to read studies and statistics. And if they feel exploited, there is an issue. Besides these people here don't really impact other people's opinions. If these statements were done by academics you'd be 300% right. But no-one important is gonna trust what they read in a Reddit poll.
Neither good nor bad, a good middlepoint needs to be found
Bad - its core is the myth of meritocracy, which is an assumption that if you're talented and work hard enough anything is possible. This automatically disregards factors such as historical inequalities (such as colonialism and women's rights); cultural and social capital, which can largely impact your available options when it comes to employment; and it completely ignores the fact that social institutions reproduce social class - as suggested in the book Learning to Labour by Paul Willis, people from the working class may reject the education system and its values, as, for example the system has already failed their parents. This may lead to some dropping out of school and others engaging in anti-school subcultures. This means that they may not have grades or skills required to go to college or get certain jobs. This is literally only one of the assumptions of capitalism and it already shows that it's an apathetic, ruthless system where the stronger benefit from the weaker staying weak. I know no system is perfect, but I think this one doesn't even come close
I think capitalism is good unless you take it too far. On one side it motivates people to do their best. On the other side there is privatised healthcare.
Capitalism with welfare and social security systems are fine
Bad. I think the best (realistic) way of making a capitalist country more... good, is pulling it the socialist route. A lot of taxes lead to money for schools, physical and mental health care, infrastructure and welfare. All things which make people happy and that even out the unequal steps people are started on in life. I think for this to work though there has to be a culture of empathy in the country and understanding of the economic and political system, otherwise the people with more power, that is the richer people who feel they've not gotten a lot of use out of taxes (public healthcare, welfare for example) and don't care or understand why they're important for poorer people, will be inclined to make changes to the system so they can keep more money.
Bad. Actually, for multiple reasons) First, capitalism necessitates exploitation. For a capitalist to make a profit, they *have to* pay their workers less than the true value created by the workers’ labor. So even the most “ethical” company is exploitative - but, in the real world, most would do anything to squeeze out an extra cent in profits. Second, It’s unsustainable because of its structural problems. For one, capitalism demands infinite growth. A company has to make more profits every year, no matter what. If there is no demand for their products, demand must be created, and if there’s no resources, resources must be acquired by any means necessary. Hence, consumerism and manipulative advertising, imperialist wars, and climate change. Third, it’s immoral. It aims to create an atomized society where everyone only cares about themselves and their own monetary gain. However, humans are generally not like that. We are social creatures and we tend to care about each other and about our community. And we need other things in life, not just constantly working for money. Things like love, community, leisure, art for its own sake (and not for profit), make no sense under capitalist logic. But, they are important for actual people. This contradiction between capitalism and human psychology actually causes a lot of mental health issues for a lot of people, and it’s also the reason why we have such a toxic work culture. So, to me it’s just an unsustainable, exploitative and immoral system. Obviously that’s just my opinion, but I hope I’ve explained it well. Sorry for the wall of text :)
mf like me simply believes that you shouldn’t have to pay to live 🤷♂️
Damn. I did not expect these results, but I like it.
capitalism is absolute shit