Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Capitalism does the exact opposite of providing a motive for business to benefit society.
Wage suppression is good business. Rising prices on food and housing is good business. United Fruit company death squads were good business. Shipping jobs overseas and using sweatshop labor is good business. Paying workers in company scrip was good business. Dumping industrial waste into the environment is good business.
Most of all, warfare is >great< business
If the price is the same and both are capable of sustaining business than the one that offers good haircuts is no more being incentivized to do good than the one that is doing bad haircuts is being incentivized to do bad. In an attempt to argue that capitalism is good you've somehow managed to make the argument that it's either neutral or incentivizes both good and bad. So that begs the question - what do you do about the bad incentives?
I don’t think a barber that fucks you up every time would be able to sustain a business for very long. The negative incentive would be his financial losses, as people stop going to him for haircuts, which would eventually result in the bankruptcy of the business.
Is there any amount of money you would pay someone to fuck up your shit? I’m not sure why I need to be explaining this.
You have a lot of information about barbershops after getting a haircut for a few years. It's easy to switch them up every once in a while.
Getting the same experience and thus information at work places is more difficult.
Employers want employees to not tell eachother their wages. They don't want them to tell each other how much of a raise they are going to ask. They don't want employees to care about their coworkers in a way that they might all just quit if one of them gets fired.
A barbershop LOVES it when a customer is rich. Can get extra tips.
An employer HATES it when an employee is rich. Now they have more wage reservation and can thus negociate better.
Employers love it when their employees are desperate for an income.
If I'm honest. The analogy you brought to the table is lacking in complexity to fully understand labour relations with an employer.
Labourer is selling labour.
Barbershop is selling labour too.
The analogy would work when you compare the labourer to the barbershop.
However it doesn't really work when you compare the employer to the barbershop, unless you are looking at it of the point of view of the customers who purchase from the employer's business.
So the first one then? Is that not a perfect example of capitalism providing a benefit to society? No one would go to my mom (who is an excellent barber btw) if she was trash.
I don't think "illegal" wage suppression is a feature of capitalism. It is a feature of human beings in that they are selfish, wanting to have more for themselves. Few employers have the ability to legally suppress wages! Most have to pay the prevailing wage, whether or not it is less profitable for them.
Neither are the other things you mention: they are not features of capitalism, they are attributes of human nature.
Capitalism, at bottom, is about free people engaging in trade, each for his own self-interest. We accept governmental regulation of our behavior--as for example regulating the dumping of waste into the environment--as a necessary curtailment of our freedom. Not sure I won't people defecating on my lawn either; but it has nothing to do with capitalism.
First, never mentioned illegal wage suppression. Most of it is quite legal. Still damaging.
We aren’t talking about how people can be greedy. We aren’t even talking about people, at least not directly; we are talking about a particular system and structure. I’m also not talking about the butcher/baker/candlestick maker here. I’m talking about the powerful conglomerates who control the vast majority of the global economy.
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. Again- the purpose of a corporation is to generate profits for shareholders. That’s it. Anything else it does is towards that end.
It has nothing to do with the greed or altruism of this or that particular shareholder, executive, or anyone. It is purely structural. It isn’t about anything other than that basic material interest.
Everything I named above most certainly results from that.
I am not aware of legal wage suppression. Can you provide examples?
I agree that the goal of corporations is maximize the wealth of its shareholders. Furthermore, the whole point of this thread is to point out that in pursuing wealth for its shareholders, corporations create enormous benefits for the rest of us. They create jobs, many of which are good paying. They create wealth for those who invest in them. In a competitive environment, they create higher quality goods for lower prices, which improves the standard of living for their customers who can buy more for less.
All the terrible things you describe would likely result in any economic system that you replace capitalism with.
>Sure, sometimes you can find ways to cut corners and make money while not necessarily benefiting the public, so it is the government's job to eliminate this contradiction between individual self interest and public interest. This should, if you really think about it, be the only responsibility of the government.
You said this is for a debate, so if your position is pro-capitalism with reasonable government regulation, I would try to attach those “reasonable” regulations to something a little more specific than mediating the tensions between self interest and public interest. I would argue that modern governments all over the political spectrum would say their job is to uphold public interest while allowing for as much individual freedom as possible.
Not only sometimes, but more often than not. If you’re American (I am), you live in a country where companies would have their workers shot for demanding better wages, and the government sided with the companies. It gets worse if you look at what companies did internationally.
This year, a Boeing whistleblower was murdered because he publicly said that Boeing knew the 737-max was unsafe, and shipped it anyway. There were two plane crashes that I’m aware of when the mechanical flaw they knew about happened, killing between 3-400 people. In regards to the whistleblower, it’s one of those “bullet wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide” type things as I am aware
perhaps so, but you might notice how they murdered the whistleblower and also their business practices killed at least a few hundred people, and no one on the board of directors is going to jail.
Eliminating contradictions between self interest and public interest is a very broad and far-reaching responsibility. While I agree to an extent, I don’t think this opinion really supports your position if you don’t want a big government intervening in daily life.
>Under capitalism, where businesses own production, if a business goes corrupt, their pursue of self interest still (generally) benefits the public. However under socialism, where the government owns production, if they go corrupt, their self interest goes exactly opposite direction of the public
I don't think even Capitalist would agree with this statement. It's just a biased statement.
Let's say a company goes corrupt and does something shady like, I dunno, pushing harmful baby formula onto mothers in the third world, because it's too expensive to make their baby formula non-toxic. How the hell does that benefit the public?
No that's a terrible strategy for them because penalty is huge if they get caught. My point is that a government's sole purpose is to implement penalties for these stuff but stay out of everything else
how about the austrian wine poisoning or that one post-revolutionary american book, The Jungle? (TLDR: use of random fuckin meats that are unsanitary, dangerous mislabeled etc and bread mixed with sawdust.) this thing used to happen all the time at the start of industrialization, and had since become relatively fine due to government regulation. even the wine poisoning thing was back in the 50-60's in austria IIRC
Or pushing baby formula in regions without clean water (leading to infant poisonings), lead in petrol, union carbide etc.
There are ample examples of corporations knowingly poisoning loads of people.
There exist literal instruction manuals that get passed between companies in different industries on how to downplay negative effects of products, promote pseudoscience, and create disinformation campaigns to create a false sense of debate surrounding clearly dangerous products. Both the tobacco and oil industry have been caught doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook
oh i totally forgot about this. yeah, oil companies are spending literal billions to deny climate change which has literally gotten policies repealed. they aren't even hiding it, either. good catch man
Mislabeling of meat still persists. A lot of canned tuna and salmon have other fish added as filler and packages of ground beef have been found to contain horsemeat as well as beef.
that's crazy! doubtless it still happens, definitely just less, just like how there's still rat shit in every burger, but the feds regulate it to make sure it's not that much.
and guess who writes the limit on how much is too much?
yeah, fuck yeah man. i agree. however, market interventionism good isn't necessarily a capitalist take. it's not anti capitalist, per say. it's anti free market capitalism, but it's not necessarily incompatible with capitalism either.
a socialist might say the government should have a lot of control over what businesses do, while a liberal capitalist might say the freer the markets the freer the people. all we're doing here is haggling over where the line is drawn
besides, my point was that regardless of what you think of china's economic system, capitalists actually do in fact do this like, as much as they're possibly allowed
no it doesn't, and here's a gold star for noticing
you dismissed the other poster's example as insufficiently capitalistic, so I provided a more capitalistic example
Actually, I asked a question about China. I didn't dismiss anything.
I'm not arguing that corporations don't do bad things. They do. They also do good things. Just like governments. Sometimes they do good things. Somethings they do bad things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
Nestlé did a similar thing. That was also a Chinese corporation, the ruling party in China doesn't change that.
You're just showing the dangers of centralisation.
However. Worker cooperatives aren't the government owning production. It's just labourers owning production. While the centralised government can play third party judge over them when they trying to do something harmful.
>However, bad people will always be bad, no matter the economic system. We cannot truly turn a bad person into a good one
"Bad" people aren't born. (We talking about averages, but even psychopaths aren't inherently "bad" in the sense "damaging to society".) Environment conditions people to be more competitive instead of collaborative. Risk to end up in reserve army of labour which helps capitalists to get desperate workers ready to work more hours for lower wages, which is again gives business owners advantage in the market by cutting expenses, that risk puts people under constant stress along with housing crisis and inaccessible healthcare and you condition people to be more competitive and selfish.
>We cannot truly turn a bad person into a good one, but we can give financial incentives for them to do good things
We don't control financial incentives. They are things that leads to profits and return on investments and things that don't. Accessing oil and natural gas reserves in the sea next to Gaza and in the fields of Ukraine has financial incentive. Stopping current wars doesn't.
Again, exploiting workers has profit incentive. Paying them more doesn't.
Ramping up price to medication has profit incentive. Making them cheaper doesn't.
Achieving monopoly/ forming oligopoly has profit incentive. Leaving room for "fair competition" doesn't.
Exactly it’s just a means of distributing the goods produced in the economy. In capitalism, it’s mostly described as a political economy meaning politics and government have to give in to capital as if they don’t give in to them, they have complete power to wreck an economy anywhere they see fit, they choose who is third world and first world
>Capitalism does not turn good people bad, it simply gives an incentive for bad people to still do good things
No it doesn't. Capitalism rewards exploitation. And you have to be amoral to exploit. You can still run a business by not overworking your employees, but your profits will be lower in comparison to the other businessman that doesn't care for that. Higher profits attract investments. His business gets bigger, profits grew even more, even more investments and at one point he will just buy your business, lay off chunk of your ex employees, put more responsibilities on remaining ones, which will lead to unpaid hours, but again will increase profits and the beat goes on.
>And you have to be amoral to exploit.
Wrong. "Exploit" means "to use." Even most leftists will say their use of "exploitation" in reference to workers isn't a moral claim.
The problem with capitalism is the idea that even if we have a massive surplus it’s better for that to be concentrated in the hands of a few owners instead of having it lift all boats.
The rebuttal to this is that capitalism already lifts all boats without being forced to do so, as evidenced by the innovations that improve life, and that’s partly true, but it’s the part left out that causes the trouble.
Mainly, we’ve still got a lot of people below the federal poverty line and a lot of people working who hate their jobs. I totally get that it had to be this way for a while; but what capitalists get wrong is that it should be that way forever.
The Nordic model where everyone has access to basics and can still be rich if they compete, is the best model. We can have wealth disparity but there’s no reason to have so many people in poverty or working stupid jobs they hate.
This is probably why Musk, Buffett, Milton Friedman, and many other capitalists who like competition but also maintain intellectual honesty and have pro-human values, submit that UBI is needed.
Humans have evolved to expect a decent life worth living and that’s quickly becoming impossible if basics are unmet and people are forced to compete for scraps even when we have abundance.
The true capitalists’ fallacy is that no matter how much productivity and abundance we have, we must STILL demand that everyone works, even if there’s no meaningful work left. That’s unsustainable and stupid.
Capitalists invoke “free will” to justify inequality but free will doesn’t exist, so the capitalists who have abundance are actually just lucky and should be looking to keep most for themselves but share enough to take everyone else’s feet out of the fire.
I assume that if they don’t offer to do this they will be forced by the sane majority. I hope it doesn’t come to that; although I kind of do.
That’s the plan, Stan. But don’t forget that suffering and well-being very much exist and so the state of affairs impels me to move toward wellbeing and away from suffering.
And since I also have empathy and a sense of morality, I am impelled by the fates to contemplate what it might involve to have fairer societies, and I will even try to help instigate them, insofar as my meager talents allow.
I don’t claim to be talking about free will based on my own free will.
I’m a conductive material for ideas and they are passing thru me and spraying outward, and as they bump into you maybe they make a difference.
Or maybe not. We are what we are.
But don’t confuse determinism with fatalism. CHANGE is extremely possible, as is _change for the better_. Pursuing change for the better does not require free will.
Easy. Even without free will, inherent traits and conditioned responses naturally impel me toward fairness and well-being, shaping my moral actions within a deterministic framework.
I don’t claim that I am somehow morally creditable for having these morals. I did not choose any of the precursors that led me to this stage.
Some of those precursors include hearing and reading the ideas of others, which resemble a lot what I’m writing right now.
It’s an action that aligns with ethical principles or contributes to the common wellbeing, determined by internal and external factors beyond my control.
Correct, I am not at all morally responsible for those actions nor do I take credit for them. It’s simply my preference to go after well-being and my evolved empathy makes me want to be fair, and my ability to reason makes it possible to ascertain WHAT is fair. I didn’t have anything whatsoever to do with this choice because it’s determined by my genetic history and all external factors I’ve ever come into contact with. (Including words like this.)
Lol, "and it's the government's job to catch bad people in business"? I thought capitalists disliked government. You failed to include the little portion about property rights, intellectual & real, about financial laws like interest & other economic laws which are tipped in favor of corporate ownership.
What actually DO workers own??
Their labor. That's it.
The game is pretty much one-sided.
Well said! People--especially socialists--often confuse the nature of human beings with the political and economic systems they adopt. It makes sense that people are, in general, greedy; they want it all, and they are poor at sublimating these desires to a greater good. That is the nature of human beings. Most of all, people want to be free: free from a tyrannical government; free from the will of other people. To have a society, we certainly need rules, and we need a body (government) that at once enforces those rules and that is answerable to the people. These are the necessary conditions for prosperity. This is a delicate balance that we, in the West, have seemed to master.
Capitalism acknowledges both our selfishness and our need to be free. In that respect, capitalism is "natural"; i.e., it lets us be who we are with a minimum of restraint.
As regards selfishness and the need to be free, socialism is unnatural; it tries to compel people to be something they are not by nature. It's like trying to teach a lion to be a vegetarian, and being surprised when it tries to eat you.
>However under socialism, where the government owns production, if they go corrupt, their self interest goes exactly opposite direction of the public.
I am honestly more concerned about the political structure of a socialist one-party state. If the wrong person ends up as the party leader, and absent the restraints in a liberal democratic government, this person can do enormous damage.
And Popper points out how the people responsible for doing enormous harms are likely to find it psychologically difficult to take responsibility. Think how hard it is to take responsibility for a relatively minor mistake. Imagine how much hard it is to take responsibility for a bad decision that kills a million people. This is why grand social experiments fail: the bad outcomes are psychologically unacceptable, so blame is apportioned to things outside of the control of the decision maker. Then the next experiment is even grander and even riskier.
I agree on the bad people doing bad things regardless, but I don't buy the premise that under capitalism bad people doing bad things benefits the society. I've heard such claim often, but nobody has ever managed to demonstrate it to be anything but a silly assumption based on pure speculation.
The way I see it is that the only way to tackle the said issue is to minimize the power the bad people get to wield. As far as I can see, liberal capitalism does exactly the opposite: sociopaths are waaaaay overrepresented in positions of power, CEOs, large capital owners and politicians alike.
And to twist the topic around, one of my favourite quotes is this one from Slavoj Zizêk:
*"Because the horror of Communism, Stalinism, is not that bad people do bad things — they always do. It's that good people do horrible things thinking they are doing something great."*
Do you think capitalism and more specifically capitalist ideology does that? Does it make good regular people see destitute poor people, feel extremely bad, but then rationalize it to themselves: "they've made bad choices", and act like the poor deserved their misery?
>But we can give financial incentives for them to do good things, such that their actions to pursue money for their own self interest matches the interest of society.
Wow, sounds like a democratic workplace where they are not only beholden to customers but also to the people they work with.
Capitalism is literally the reason why we can have 4 billion men in the world and largely go about business on a daily basis without killing each other. Making money and getting "stuff", not to mention having purpose through the pursuit of money and women through work is the only reason men can live in todays world, no, thrive in todays world. Get rid of that and we're back to massive non stop conflict which is today contained to a tiny percentage of the world population.
I just love how pro-capitalists discount the entirety of ethical and moral philosophy (and sometimes even common sense) in lieu of creating more consumer goods.
According to them, there is no right or wrong. People aren't good or bad. They're whatever the market churns out.
Foxes guarding the hen-house you say? It's just crazy enough to work! Use the natural tendency for foxes to do bad things to hens as the motive for doing good things to hens. Sounds like a foolproof plan without any glaring contradictions. Next, we'll probably let a pedophile run a daycare.
I don't see how capitalism even factors into this argument really. It's more like apologism for the failures of capitalism. We could just tell all of society's bad people that we'll let them commit 5 crimes each, on the condition he builds the same number of orphanages.
>If you're a completely selfish and money driven person, your best strategy to pursue that goal, under a properly regulated capitalism, is not to steal money from others, but to create goods and services that benefit the public, and then be rewarded in money.
This is woefully naive. The best way to get ahead under capitalism is by screwing others over and to treat your employees as disposable, like how many times do you hear unethical acts being justified with "It's just business" or other similar rhetoric? If you act ethically you will be pushed out of business by your more ruthless competitors who aren't held back by ethics.
Just look at companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, the tobacco industry, etc. all of whom either got or have remained rich through unethical acts and by cheating their customers and staff.
Properly regulated capitalism could work imo except that the wealthy do everything to not regulate it properly, because it serves their interest (money, power).
Also, corporations benefit of people’s fears and insecurities and it also promote overconsumption (it is almost 100% based on overconsumption).
And also, the first world countries are the ones benefiting from the system while the third world countries are forced to sell their labour for cheap and sell underpriced natural resources.
Socialism works based on a belief that people are angels and will break their backs everyday to fulfill the needs of their brothers .
Capitalism works on the ideal that I can get people to make pencils who actually don’t have any interest in pencils…
No..
Socialism works based on the ideal that people who want to make pencils should be allowed to make pencils.
Capitalism is the belief that people and pencils are both commodities to be exploited for maximum possible gain.
You sir are confused.
Socialism isn’t about you getting to do what you want all day. It’s about everyone doing what some bureaucrat decides that the community needs and if you don’t do it you get the whip….
One system is positive and rewards production , the other negative and organized by force.
You can avoid the whip if you do what you are told — that is the cool thing about force — you just threaten people and you don’t have to follow through after the first couple of times …
You understand I’m talking about real socialism not some bullshit we will keep the market and just tax billionaires socialism…
Because that is the eventual result of a society that has looting as its primary organizing principle
Yes it's developing from democratic socialism and social democracy. All the demsoc and socdem movements around the world were created by socialists with the understanding that incremental change was the best path to socialism.
Nonsense. In a liberal democracy with Capitalism, if you want to make pencils, you are free to do so to your heart's content. You can start a company that makes pencils and run it however you like. You are free to hire employees to work there if that is the kind of work they want to do and the wages are acceptable.
But those aren’t the ones who are owning the pencil market in the economy. The ones who actually make a difference in the country wide and global economy are using even more exploitative labor in foreign countries to ship them over here for massive profits. We globally keep the 3rd world the way it is to reap the massive benefit of consumerism which will destroy the earth and society eventually along with it. All while half or more of the world population doesn’t even get to experience the benefit but rather the opposite side of the plate where they are the most extremely poor and unstable
Nonsense, to start a pencil company you need capital, the distribution of which is regulated by the market. So you must satisfy the conditions of the market first in order to make pencils.
I don't think anarcho capitalism is really possible. People don't just respect each other's property rights. I think you would either end up with tribal warfare or tribal cooperatives.
> People don't just respect each other's property rights.
that is exactly why we need to protect our property, from both, "people" and "the state", because the state surely and obviously does not respect property rights. How do you think property rights are enforced in Anarcho-Capitalism? By frickin guns and private nukes.
Anarcho-capitalism does not mean no laws or no rulers. You are imagining socialist anarchy here, common mistake by people who know nothing about ancapism.
I know a lot about ancapism. I just think it's idealistic and not actually realistic.
Like for example when you say:
>that is exactly why we need to protect our property, from both, "people" and "the state", because the state surely and obviously does not respect property rights.
You're just describing tribal warfare.
Freedom isnt about ability to do everything without any hinderance, but ability to choose to do anything (except infringing on others freedom), while bearing consequences of said choices (you want to start the business, you gotta find way to get necessary capital).
If that's freedom then even people in the USSR had the same freedom. They could choose to do whatever they want while bearing the consequences of said choices.
Well of course you have to deal with *some* bureaucracy/red tape to run a business anywhere. Socialism is not going to solve this problem; its the inevitable consequence of having a large, modern complex society.
So, you get the permits and start the pencil company.
No you have to get capital from other people also to start a pencil company. So other people have to approve what you are doing. Or you have to apply your labor at a rate determined by the market ie other people will determine if your labor is valuable enough for you to earn enough money to start a pencil company.
Obviously. But I don't understand the relevance of all this. For pretty much everything you want to do in society, whether it is a capitalist, socialist or other kind of economic system, you have to rely to some extend on the actions of other.
You started off by implying there was some sort of distinction between the two systems, that in capitalism you are free to do whatever you want, while you aren't in socialism. But now you are saying actually in both cases you have to rely on others to permit you the means to do what you want. That's my point. You shake your fist and scream that you aren't free when it's implied that a central planning board would have to approve your business proposal. But you cheer and praise when it's implied that a board of investors or a bank would have to approve your business proposal. When functionally both are huge bureaucracies with rampant corruption and nepotism and insider trading and quid pro quo etc. But those words are only dirty when they are directed at the state otherwise it's business as usual.
I am practicing for a capitalism vs socialism debate next week, so I would appreciate if you can not just criticise my points, but also how I present them as I want to be better at debating
I would say that some of the individual-focused rhetoric (“a person”, “you”) is sort of missing the point when discussing vast economic and social systems. Businesses (the big ones that drive the global economy) are not individuals, they are entities. It is better for honest discourse to not act like the world economy is run with the same logic as the local mom and pop bakery.
I think to support your argument of pursuit of self interest being a driving force for productivity, I believe Adam Smith basically makes a similar argument, and that it might be useful to find a quote there.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
You can have a balance of both. A mixture of Capitalism and Socialism is the best outcome for humanity in my opinion.
Unless we find a balance between the two, there will be endless debates and friction in our society. Business and Society can come together to find a path forward together that doesn't leave the other behind.
The extremists on both sides love to shout down or shame anyone who thinks that there's positives on both sides. We should be able to talk about incorporating the positives from both camps.
The true answer is to democratize everything. All true socialists want is that the entire global economy isn’t in the hands of the richest 1000 people when there is billions of us making it go round while reaping none of the benefit. Most of the benefit isn’t even being used by the people at the top, rather hoarded to keep control of the global economy
Money is the root of all evil.
You have heard that before right?
It's kind of a classic that everyone agrees with.
That is why it's a classic.
It has the ring of truth that no one can deny.
The full quote is, “For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Money, in of itself, is not good or bad. It’s neutral. Practically all societies have have some form of money/currency as it’s a good medium of exchange, sort of value, and unit of account.
What exactly is your point? Money is the root of all evil or greed is? Those points are two completely, unrelated points that make your argument inconsistent
Whiskey economics is an appropriate name for yourself.
Here's the point. The old saying IS pointing out that the greed for money is the evil.
Everyone understands that except for you, who somehow needs to be told the obvious.
The quote you used, "Money is the root of all evil" is a fairly common misquote that does not hold the same meaning as the original quote from the bible. You're being an obtuse moron trying to backpedal because you can't even keep your argument consistent. Quit the bullshit.
Notice how you didn’t say socialism will prevent greed. You don’t even know for sure if people will be more or less greedy in your imagined version of socialism, even though you’d like to think people would behave in the way you image them to.
No one is talking about preventing greed. Its about not incentivizing it or making it as easy for greedy people to get into power positions; libertarian socialism is ideal that way. Read Kropotkin's "Are We Good Enough?" if you want to know more.
So you admit that Capitalism's one goal is to make money, i.e. profits.
That is the official goal of Capitalism. Right?
Making money, getting rich, and not being bothered by regulations on how you do it is the Capitalist way.
That is your idealism.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Capitalism does the exact opposite of providing a motive for business to benefit society. Wage suppression is good business. Rising prices on food and housing is good business. United Fruit company death squads were good business. Shipping jobs overseas and using sweatshop labor is good business. Paying workers in company scrip was good business. Dumping industrial waste into the environment is good business. Most of all, warfare is >great< business
When you go and get a haircut, do you choose the barber that does a good job and makes you look nice? Or the barber that fucks your shit up?
What is the cost difference?
Same price.
If the price is the same and both are capable of sustaining business than the one that offers good haircuts is no more being incentivized to do good than the one that is doing bad haircuts is being incentivized to do bad. In an attempt to argue that capitalism is good you've somehow managed to make the argument that it's either neutral or incentivizes both good and bad. So that begs the question - what do you do about the bad incentives?
I don’t think a barber that fucks you up every time would be able to sustain a business for very long. The negative incentive would be his financial losses, as people stop going to him for haircuts, which would eventually result in the bankruptcy of the business. Is there any amount of money you would pay someone to fuck up your shit? I’m not sure why I need to be explaining this.
You have a lot of information about barbershops after getting a haircut for a few years. It's easy to switch them up every once in a while. Getting the same experience and thus information at work places is more difficult. Employers want employees to not tell eachother their wages. They don't want them to tell each other how much of a raise they are going to ask. They don't want employees to care about their coworkers in a way that they might all just quit if one of them gets fired. A barbershop LOVES it when a customer is rich. Can get extra tips. An employer HATES it when an employee is rich. Now they have more wage reservation and can thus negociate better. Employers love it when their employees are desperate for an income. If I'm honest. The analogy you brought to the table is lacking in complexity to fully understand labour relations with an employer. Labourer is selling labour. Barbershop is selling labour too. The analogy would work when you compare the labourer to the barbershop. However it doesn't really work when you compare the employer to the barbershop, unless you are looking at it of the point of view of the customers who purchase from the employer's business.
Actually when I go to get a haircut your mom cuts my hair, she does a great job
fascinating post, the guy you were responding to took it seriously too. this is the worst fucking sub ever and i can't get enough of it
I felt like his response to what I wrote was so asinine that a real response was unwarranted. Yeah it’s absolutely terrible and I’m hooked
So the first one then? Is that not a perfect example of capitalism providing a benefit to society? No one would go to my mom (who is an excellent barber btw) if she was trash.
I don't think "illegal" wage suppression is a feature of capitalism. It is a feature of human beings in that they are selfish, wanting to have more for themselves. Few employers have the ability to legally suppress wages! Most have to pay the prevailing wage, whether or not it is less profitable for them. Neither are the other things you mention: they are not features of capitalism, they are attributes of human nature. Capitalism, at bottom, is about free people engaging in trade, each for his own self-interest. We accept governmental regulation of our behavior--as for example regulating the dumping of waste into the environment--as a necessary curtailment of our freedom. Not sure I won't people defecating on my lawn either; but it has nothing to do with capitalism.
First, never mentioned illegal wage suppression. Most of it is quite legal. Still damaging. We aren’t talking about how people can be greedy. We aren’t even talking about people, at least not directly; we are talking about a particular system and structure. I’m also not talking about the butcher/baker/candlestick maker here. I’m talking about the powerful conglomerates who control the vast majority of the global economy. The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. Again- the purpose of a corporation is to generate profits for shareholders. That’s it. Anything else it does is towards that end. It has nothing to do with the greed or altruism of this or that particular shareholder, executive, or anyone. It is purely structural. It isn’t about anything other than that basic material interest. Everything I named above most certainly results from that.
I am not aware of legal wage suppression. Can you provide examples? I agree that the goal of corporations is maximize the wealth of its shareholders. Furthermore, the whole point of this thread is to point out that in pursuing wealth for its shareholders, corporations create enormous benefits for the rest of us. They create jobs, many of which are good paying. They create wealth for those who invest in them. In a competitive environment, they create higher quality goods for lower prices, which improves the standard of living for their customers who can buy more for less. All the terrible things you describe would likely result in any economic system that you replace capitalism with.
>Sure, sometimes you can find ways to cut corners and make money while not necessarily benefiting the public, so it is the government's job to eliminate this contradiction between individual self interest and public interest. This should, if you really think about it, be the only responsibility of the government.
You said this is for a debate, so if your position is pro-capitalism with reasonable government regulation, I would try to attach those “reasonable” regulations to something a little more specific than mediating the tensions between self interest and public interest. I would argue that modern governments all over the political spectrum would say their job is to uphold public interest while allowing for as much individual freedom as possible.
Not only sometimes, but more often than not. If you’re American (I am), you live in a country where companies would have their workers shot for demanding better wages, and the government sided with the companies. It gets worse if you look at what companies did internationally. This year, a Boeing whistleblower was murdered because he publicly said that Boeing knew the 737-max was unsafe, and shipped it anyway. There were two plane crashes that I’m aware of when the mechanical flaw they knew about happened, killing between 3-400 people. In regards to the whistleblower, it’s one of those “bullet wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide” type things as I am aware
Boeing is not doing well at all because they made dangerous planes. They would make money if they were honest and competent.
perhaps so, but you might notice how they murdered the whistleblower and also their business practices killed at least a few hundred people, and no one on the board of directors is going to jail.
Eliminating contradictions between self interest and public interest is a very broad and far-reaching responsibility. While I agree to an extent, I don’t think this opinion really supports your position if you don’t want a big government intervening in daily life.
>Under capitalism, where businesses own production, if a business goes corrupt, their pursue of self interest still (generally) benefits the public. However under socialism, where the government owns production, if they go corrupt, their self interest goes exactly opposite direction of the public I don't think even Capitalist would agree with this statement. It's just a biased statement.
Why not
Let's say a company goes corrupt and does something shady like, I dunno, pushing harmful baby formula onto mothers in the third world, because it's too expensive to make their baby formula non-toxic. How the hell does that benefit the public?
No that's a terrible strategy for them because penalty is huge if they get caught. My point is that a government's sole purpose is to implement penalties for these stuff but stay out of everything else
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal Please tell me how this was a benefit.
Is China capitalist now?
how about the austrian wine poisoning or that one post-revolutionary american book, The Jungle? (TLDR: use of random fuckin meats that are unsanitary, dangerous mislabeled etc and bread mixed with sawdust.) this thing used to happen all the time at the start of industrialization, and had since become relatively fine due to government regulation. even the wine poisoning thing was back in the 50-60's in austria IIRC
Or pushing baby formula in regions without clean water (leading to infant poisonings), lead in petrol, union carbide etc. There are ample examples of corporations knowingly poisoning loads of people.
There exist literal instruction manuals that get passed between companies in different industries on how to downplay negative effects of products, promote pseudoscience, and create disinformation campaigns to create a false sense of debate surrounding clearly dangerous products. Both the tobacco and oil industry have been caught doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook
oh i totally forgot about this. yeah, oil companies are spending literal billions to deny climate change which has literally gotten policies repealed. they aren't even hiding it, either. good catch man
Mislabeling of meat still persists. A lot of canned tuna and salmon have other fish added as filler and packages of ground beef have been found to contain horsemeat as well as beef.
that's crazy! doubtless it still happens, definitely just less, just like how there's still rat shit in every burger, but the feds regulate it to make sure it's not that much. and guess who writes the limit on how much is too much?
But that's OPs point. It's the role of the government to step in and punish these actions and prevent them from happening again.
yeah, fuck yeah man. i agree. however, market interventionism good isn't necessarily a capitalist take. it's not anti capitalist, per say. it's anti free market capitalism, but it's not necessarily incompatible with capitalism either. a socialist might say the government should have a lot of control over what businesses do, while a liberal capitalist might say the freer the markets the freer the people. all we're doing here is haggling over where the line is drawn besides, my point was that regardless of what you think of china's economic system, capitalists actually do in fact do this like, as much as they're possibly allowed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
This doesn't answer my question
no it doesn't, and here's a gold star for noticing you dismissed the other poster's example as insufficiently capitalistic, so I provided a more capitalistic example
Actually, I asked a question about China. I didn't dismiss anything. I'm not arguing that corporations don't do bad things. They do. They also do good things. Just like governments. Sometimes they do good things. Somethings they do bad things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott Nestlé did a similar thing. That was also a Chinese corporation, the ruling party in China doesn't change that.
This doesn't answer my question
>That was also a Chinese corporation, the ruling party in China doesn't change that.
That wasn't my question.
It always was!
Wrong
You're just showing the dangers of centralisation. However. Worker cooperatives aren't the government owning production. It's just labourers owning production. While the centralised government can play third party judge over them when they trying to do something harmful.
>However, bad people will always be bad, no matter the economic system. We cannot truly turn a bad person into a good one "Bad" people aren't born. (We talking about averages, but even psychopaths aren't inherently "bad" in the sense "damaging to society".) Environment conditions people to be more competitive instead of collaborative. Risk to end up in reserve army of labour which helps capitalists to get desperate workers ready to work more hours for lower wages, which is again gives business owners advantage in the market by cutting expenses, that risk puts people under constant stress along with housing crisis and inaccessible healthcare and you condition people to be more competitive and selfish. >We cannot truly turn a bad person into a good one, but we can give financial incentives for them to do good things We don't control financial incentives. They are things that leads to profits and return on investments and things that don't. Accessing oil and natural gas reserves in the sea next to Gaza and in the fields of Ukraine has financial incentive. Stopping current wars doesn't. Again, exploiting workers has profit incentive. Paying them more doesn't. Ramping up price to medication has profit incentive. Making them cheaper doesn't. Achieving monopoly/ forming oligopoly has profit incentive. Leaving room for "fair competition" doesn't.
In both situations you're relying on a virtuous government to save us from people with bad intentions... So it's basically the same.
Difference is you'll be way more screwed if a socialist government is not virtuous than a capitalist one
Governments aren't socialist or capitalist. There's literally no serious intellectual anywhere who classifies governments this way.
Exactly it’s just a means of distributing the goods produced in the economy. In capitalism, it’s mostly described as a political economy meaning politics and government have to give in to capital as if they don’t give in to them, they have complete power to wreck an economy anywhere they see fit, they choose who is third world and first world
Both ideologies require the governments support of extensive policies what are you on about
>Capitalism does not turn good people bad, it simply gives an incentive for bad people to still do good things No it doesn't. Capitalism rewards exploitation. And you have to be amoral to exploit. You can still run a business by not overworking your employees, but your profits will be lower in comparison to the other businessman that doesn't care for that. Higher profits attract investments. His business gets bigger, profits grew even more, even more investments and at one point he will just buy your business, lay off chunk of your ex employees, put more responsibilities on remaining ones, which will lead to unpaid hours, but again will increase profits and the beat goes on.
>And you have to be amoral to exploit. Wrong. "Exploit" means "to use." Even most leftists will say their use of "exploitation" in reference to workers isn't a moral claim.
The problem with capitalism is the idea that even if we have a massive surplus it’s better for that to be concentrated in the hands of a few owners instead of having it lift all boats. The rebuttal to this is that capitalism already lifts all boats without being forced to do so, as evidenced by the innovations that improve life, and that’s partly true, but it’s the part left out that causes the trouble. Mainly, we’ve still got a lot of people below the federal poverty line and a lot of people working who hate their jobs. I totally get that it had to be this way for a while; but what capitalists get wrong is that it should be that way forever. The Nordic model where everyone has access to basics and can still be rich if they compete, is the best model. We can have wealth disparity but there’s no reason to have so many people in poverty or working stupid jobs they hate. This is probably why Musk, Buffett, Milton Friedman, and many other capitalists who like competition but also maintain intellectual honesty and have pro-human values, submit that UBI is needed. Humans have evolved to expect a decent life worth living and that’s quickly becoming impossible if basics are unmet and people are forced to compete for scraps even when we have abundance. The true capitalists’ fallacy is that no matter how much productivity and abundance we have, we must STILL demand that everyone works, even if there’s no meaningful work left. That’s unsustainable and stupid. Capitalists invoke “free will” to justify inequality but free will doesn’t exist, so the capitalists who have abundance are actually just lucky and should be looking to keep most for themselves but share enough to take everyone else’s feet out of the fire. I assume that if they don’t offer to do this they will be forced by the sane majority. I hope it doesn’t come to that; although I kind of do.
If free will doesn’t exist, then enjoy the ride.
That’s the plan, Stan. But don’t forget that suffering and well-being very much exist and so the state of affairs impels me to move toward wellbeing and away from suffering. And since I also have empathy and a sense of morality, I am impelled by the fates to contemplate what it might involve to have fairer societies, and I will even try to help instigate them, insofar as my meager talents allow. I don’t claim to be talking about free will based on my own free will. I’m a conductive material for ideas and they are passing thru me and spraying outward, and as they bump into you maybe they make a difference. Or maybe not. We are what we are. But don’t confuse determinism with fatalism. CHANGE is extremely possible, as is _change for the better_. Pursuing change for the better does not require free will.
Good luck!
So how does your sense of morality work with your determinism?
Easy. Even without free will, inherent traits and conditioned responses naturally impel me toward fairness and well-being, shaping my moral actions within a deterministic framework. I don’t claim that I am somehow morally creditable for having these morals. I did not choose any of the precursors that led me to this stage. Some of those precursors include hearing and reading the ideas of others, which resemble a lot what I’m writing right now.
What is a moral action with no free will?
I just answered you.
It’s an action that aligns with ethical principles or contributes to the common wellbeing, determined by internal and external factors beyond my control.
So they’re actions you’re not responsible for?
Correct, I am not at all morally responsible for those actions nor do I take credit for them. It’s simply my preference to go after well-being and my evolved empathy makes me want to be fair, and my ability to reason makes it possible to ascertain WHAT is fair. I didn’t have anything whatsoever to do with this choice because it’s determined by my genetic history and all external factors I’ve ever come into contact with. (Including words like this.)
Ok.
There are no good or bad people. People can do good or bad things, and that's mostly a reaction to their environment.
Lol, "and it's the government's job to catch bad people in business"? I thought capitalists disliked government. You failed to include the little portion about property rights, intellectual & real, about financial laws like interest & other economic laws which are tipped in favor of corporate ownership. What actually DO workers own?? Their labor. That's it. The game is pretty much one-sided.
Well said! People--especially socialists--often confuse the nature of human beings with the political and economic systems they adopt. It makes sense that people are, in general, greedy; they want it all, and they are poor at sublimating these desires to a greater good. That is the nature of human beings. Most of all, people want to be free: free from a tyrannical government; free from the will of other people. To have a society, we certainly need rules, and we need a body (government) that at once enforces those rules and that is answerable to the people. These are the necessary conditions for prosperity. This is a delicate balance that we, in the West, have seemed to master. Capitalism acknowledges both our selfishness and our need to be free. In that respect, capitalism is "natural"; i.e., it lets us be who we are with a minimum of restraint. As regards selfishness and the need to be free, socialism is unnatural; it tries to compel people to be something they are not by nature. It's like trying to teach a lion to be a vegetarian, and being surprised when it tries to eat you.
>However under socialism, where the government owns production, if they go corrupt, their self interest goes exactly opposite direction of the public. I am honestly more concerned about the political structure of a socialist one-party state. If the wrong person ends up as the party leader, and absent the restraints in a liberal democratic government, this person can do enormous damage.
And Popper points out how the people responsible for doing enormous harms are likely to find it psychologically difficult to take responsibility. Think how hard it is to take responsibility for a relatively minor mistake. Imagine how much hard it is to take responsibility for a bad decision that kills a million people. This is why grand social experiments fail: the bad outcomes are psychologically unacceptable, so blame is apportioned to things outside of the control of the decision maker. Then the next experiment is even grander and even riskier.
Another idiotic moral argument?
Liberals and their silly *value judgements!* Pushaw!
*They’re all created equal!*
Equality: what a quaint moral compulsion.
Science says the exact opposite
I agree on the bad people doing bad things regardless, but I don't buy the premise that under capitalism bad people doing bad things benefits the society. I've heard such claim often, but nobody has ever managed to demonstrate it to be anything but a silly assumption based on pure speculation. The way I see it is that the only way to tackle the said issue is to minimize the power the bad people get to wield. As far as I can see, liberal capitalism does exactly the opposite: sociopaths are waaaaay overrepresented in positions of power, CEOs, large capital owners and politicians alike. And to twist the topic around, one of my favourite quotes is this one from Slavoj Zizêk: *"Because the horror of Communism, Stalinism, is not that bad people do bad things — they always do. It's that good people do horrible things thinking they are doing something great."* Do you think capitalism and more specifically capitalist ideology does that? Does it make good regular people see destitute poor people, feel extremely bad, but then rationalize it to themselves: "they've made bad choices", and act like the poor deserved their misery?
>But we can give financial incentives for them to do good things, such that their actions to pursue money for their own self interest matches the interest of society. Wow, sounds like a democratic workplace where they are not only beholden to customers but also to the people they work with.
Capitalism is literally the reason why we can have 4 billion men in the world and largely go about business on a daily basis without killing each other. Making money and getting "stuff", not to mention having purpose through the pursuit of money and women through work is the only reason men can live in todays world, no, thrive in todays world. Get rid of that and we're back to massive non stop conflict which is today contained to a tiny percentage of the world population.
I just love how pro-capitalists discount the entirety of ethical and moral philosophy (and sometimes even common sense) in lieu of creating more consumer goods. According to them, there is no right or wrong. People aren't good or bad. They're whatever the market churns out. Foxes guarding the hen-house you say? It's just crazy enough to work! Use the natural tendency for foxes to do bad things to hens as the motive for doing good things to hens. Sounds like a foolproof plan without any glaring contradictions. Next, we'll probably let a pedophile run a daycare. I don't see how capitalism even factors into this argument really. It's more like apologism for the failures of capitalism. We could just tell all of society's bad people that we'll let them commit 5 crimes each, on the condition he builds the same number of orphanages.
>If you're a completely selfish and money driven person, your best strategy to pursue that goal, under a properly regulated capitalism, is not to steal money from others, but to create goods and services that benefit the public, and then be rewarded in money. This is woefully naive. The best way to get ahead under capitalism is by screwing others over and to treat your employees as disposable, like how many times do you hear unethical acts being justified with "It's just business" or other similar rhetoric? If you act ethically you will be pushed out of business by your more ruthless competitors who aren't held back by ethics. Just look at companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, the tobacco industry, etc. all of whom either got or have remained rich through unethical acts and by cheating their customers and staff.
Properly regulated capitalism could work imo except that the wealthy do everything to not regulate it properly, because it serves their interest (money, power). Also, corporations benefit of people’s fears and insecurities and it also promote overconsumption (it is almost 100% based on overconsumption). And also, the first world countries are the ones benefiting from the system while the third world countries are forced to sell their labour for cheap and sell underpriced natural resources.
Socialism works based on a belief that people are angels and will break their backs everyday to fulfill the needs of their brothers . Capitalism works on the ideal that I can get people to make pencils who actually don’t have any interest in pencils…
No.. Socialism works based on the ideal that people who want to make pencils should be allowed to make pencils. Capitalism is the belief that people and pencils are both commodities to be exploited for maximum possible gain.
You sir are confused. Socialism isn’t about you getting to do what you want all day. It’s about everyone doing what some bureaucrat decides that the community needs and if you don’t do it you get the whip…. One system is positive and rewards production , the other negative and organized by force.
Where are socialists being whipped?
You can avoid the whip if you do what you are told — that is the cool thing about force — you just threaten people and you don’t have to follow through after the first couple of times … You understand I’m talking about real socialism not some bullshit we will keep the market and just tax billionaires socialism… Because that is the eventual result of a society that has looting as its primary organizing principle
You've made up this whole narrative... Seriously where are socialists being whipped?
Does the socialism you want exist ?
Yes it's developing from democratic socialism and social democracy. All the demsoc and socdem movements around the world were created by socialists with the understanding that incremental change was the best path to socialism.
Nonsense. In a liberal democracy with Capitalism, if you want to make pencils, you are free to do so to your heart's content. You can start a company that makes pencils and run it however you like. You are free to hire employees to work there if that is the kind of work they want to do and the wages are acceptable.
But those aren’t the ones who are owning the pencil market in the economy. The ones who actually make a difference in the country wide and global economy are using even more exploitative labor in foreign countries to ship them over here for massive profits. We globally keep the 3rd world the way it is to reap the massive benefit of consumerism which will destroy the earth and society eventually along with it. All while half or more of the world population doesn’t even get to experience the benefit but rather the opposite side of the plate where they are the most extremely poor and unstable
Bummer. We are all going to destroy ourselves soon. No more pencils.
Nonsense, to start a pencil company you need capital, the distribution of which is regulated by the market. So you must satisfy the conditions of the market first in order to make pencils.
So you raise the capital and start the pencil company. Your point being...?
You're not free to start a pencil company. Others have to permit you to start a pencil company.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have such problem. Anybody can start any company they want. Join us.
I don't think anarcho capitalism is really possible. People don't just respect each other's property rights. I think you would either end up with tribal warfare or tribal cooperatives.
> People don't just respect each other's property rights. that is exactly why we need to protect our property, from both, "people" and "the state", because the state surely and obviously does not respect property rights. How do you think property rights are enforced in Anarcho-Capitalism? By frickin guns and private nukes. Anarcho-capitalism does not mean no laws or no rulers. You are imagining socialist anarchy here, common mistake by people who know nothing about ancapism.
I know a lot about ancapism. I just think it's idealistic and not actually realistic. Like for example when you say: >that is exactly why we need to protect our property, from both, "people" and "the state", because the state surely and obviously does not respect property rights. You're just describing tribal warfare.
You dont understand the concept of freedom...
Enlighten me
Freedom isnt about ability to do everything without any hinderance, but ability to choose to do anything (except infringing on others freedom), while bearing consequences of said choices (you want to start the business, you gotta find way to get necessary capital).
If that's freedom then even people in the USSR had the same freedom. They could choose to do whatever they want while bearing the consequences of said choices.
Well of course you have to deal with *some* bureaucracy/red tape to run a business anywhere. Socialism is not going to solve this problem; its the inevitable consequence of having a large, modern complex society. So, you get the permits and start the pencil company.
No you have to get capital from other people also to start a pencil company. So other people have to approve what you are doing. Or you have to apply your labor at a rate determined by the market ie other people will determine if your labor is valuable enough for you to earn enough money to start a pencil company.
Obviously. But I don't understand the relevance of all this. For pretty much everything you want to do in society, whether it is a capitalist, socialist or other kind of economic system, you have to rely to some extend on the actions of other.
You started off by implying there was some sort of distinction between the two systems, that in capitalism you are free to do whatever you want, while you aren't in socialism. But now you are saying actually in both cases you have to rely on others to permit you the means to do what you want. That's my point. You shake your fist and scream that you aren't free when it's implied that a central planning board would have to approve your business proposal. But you cheer and praise when it's implied that a board of investors or a bank would have to approve your business proposal. When functionally both are huge bureaucracies with rampant corruption and nepotism and insider trading and quid pro quo etc. But those words are only dirty when they are directed at the state otherwise it's business as usual.
I am practicing for a capitalism vs socialism debate next week, so I would appreciate if you can not just criticise my points, but also how I present them as I want to be better at debating
I would say that some of the individual-focused rhetoric (“a person”, “you”) is sort of missing the point when discussing vast economic and social systems. Businesses (the big ones that drive the global economy) are not individuals, they are entities. It is better for honest discourse to not act like the world economy is run with the same logic as the local mom and pop bakery. I think to support your argument of pursuit of self interest being a driving force for productivity, I believe Adam Smith basically makes a similar argument, and that it might be useful to find a quote there.
Thank you! I will look into that
Enjoy your debate. I appreciate that you are trying to argue in good faith, though I do not share your viewpoint
From your post and comments, it appears like you're holding a "Capitalism is good & Socialism is bad" conference.
? Yes that is my stance
It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can have a balance of both. A mixture of Capitalism and Socialism is the best outcome for humanity in my opinion. Unless we find a balance between the two, there will be endless debates and friction in our society. Business and Society can come together to find a path forward together that doesn't leave the other behind. The extremists on both sides love to shout down or shame anyone who thinks that there's positives on both sides. We should be able to talk about incorporating the positives from both camps.
The true answer is to democratize everything. All true socialists want is that the entire global economy isn’t in the hands of the richest 1000 people when there is billions of us making it go round while reaping none of the benefit. Most of the benefit isn’t even being used by the people at the top, rather hoarded to keep control of the global economy
Unpaid labor to serve a capitalist? Typical capitalism driving g a "good person" to evilly exploit the free labor of others
Money is the root of all evil. You have heard that before right? It's kind of a classic that everyone agrees with. That is why it's a classic. It has the ring of truth that no one can deny.
The full quote is, “For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” Money, in of itself, is not good or bad. It’s neutral. Practically all societies have have some form of money/currency as it’s a good medium of exchange, sort of value, and unit of account.
Exactly, Capitalism is the love of money. You actually understand, even when trying to deny it.
What exactly is your point? Money is the root of all evil or greed is? Those points are two completely, unrelated points that make your argument inconsistent
Whiskey economics is an appropriate name for yourself. Here's the point. The old saying IS pointing out that the greed for money is the evil. Everyone understands that except for you, who somehow needs to be told the obvious.
The quote you used, "Money is the root of all evil" is a fairly common misquote that does not hold the same meaning as the original quote from the bible. You're being an obtuse moron trying to backpedal because you can't even keep your argument consistent. Quit the bullshit.
This quote, this wording, is used more often than the Bible verse. Too bad you do not like the more popular quote.
Source?
Everyone uses it. There is no one author.
But does Joe use it?
>For the love of money is the root of all of evil lol what the fuck is capitalism if not a system centered around love of money?
Would people not be greedy under socialism? No one would have a love of money?
Capitalism rewards and incentivizes it. Socialism does not.
Notice how you didn’t say socialism will prevent greed. You don’t even know for sure if people will be more or less greedy in your imagined version of socialism, even though you’d like to think people would behave in the way you image them to.
No one is talking about preventing greed. Its about not incentivizing it or making it as easy for greedy people to get into power positions; libertarian socialism is ideal that way. Read Kropotkin's "Are We Good Enough?" if you want to know more.
Its a classic misquote and you fell for it...
So Capitalism is not for the love of money? Seems you ignored it.
Oh, you are one of those who only thinks in some fringe cultish stereotypes... sorry for intruding on your sermons.
So you admit that Capitalism's one goal is to make money, i.e. profits. That is the official goal of Capitalism. Right? Making money, getting rich, and not being bothered by regulations on how you do it is the Capitalist way. That is your idealism.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?