I think that’s the argument against capitalism though because if you have a system from which all power is financial eventually those with the power will erode the safeguards that prevent them from absorbing a disproportionate amount of the wealth. You literally handing a loaded gun to those most dangerous with it.
Ultimately any economical and Political system will struggle with this. Capitalism can work if you have a taxation and redistribution of the wealth. Otherwise all wealth eventually congregates like mass in a black hole. Simultaneously you can have a system that might have fairer basic ideals but ends up just as corrupt. See the various attempts at communism.
The tricky part is the vigilance. Imagine a Musk raising his arm for a hearty ‘sieg heil’ in 1945-80. Now he got away with it. Generations forget. Safeguards get erroded away over time as the greedy goblins hammer away at them like woodpeckers.
The loaded gun is always there. The dangerous men always try to get to it. We gotta guard it 24/7. Not an easy task.
Capitalism that you mention that could work was the capitalism we had until the 70s and it’s what lead us to the late stage capitalism we have today
Even if you reset you will end up at this stage because accumulation of wealth and thus power will always occur and then the capitalist class has both the means and incentive to change the rules of the system and then they get more wealth and power etc etc
You can’t guard it unless you have power and under capitalism you don’t.
You gave the loaded gun to the capitalist class and then try to force them to do the “right” thing and not use the gun for bad stuff, except they have the gun… they’re not going to listen to you
But isn’t the problem rather that people can be easily convinced to vote against their self-interest? It seems the people at large are not selfish enough, and the rich are too selfish?
In other words, the problem is that those that don’t have, don’t want to have strongly enough, and those that already have, want to have too much. As an overarching group, not individually, of course.
Capitalism is a funnel. Money goes from those without capital to those with capital. Simple as.
It has always been like this. For a lot of people this is a feature and not a bug.
It’s also the most productive economic system ever tried.
Everyone talks about regulation, or semi-socialism, or various other bandaids to make it work. But if you don’t remove the funnel action, it’ll eventually get to this state.
More likely, capitalism needs periods of major collapse and rebuild as major wealth redistribution events. French-style.
It’s also the most productive economic system ever tried.
I think whether this is true highly depends on the definition of productivity and circumstances.
What definition of productivity are we applying here? Capitalism sure is great at inflating useless statistics. It also seems to be decent for actually valuable products and services. However, depending on what you take into account, it’s not so clear that it’s the superior system.
Furthermore, there have been several cases of socialist governments improving the quality of life at a rate never seen in capitalist countries. Almost completely eradicating illiteracy in less than a year (Cuba). Or vaccinating half the population in a few months (Burkina Faso). Of course, those governments are rare and don’t last long thanks to the CIA.
Personally I’d say the most immediate solution - or more accurately, improvement - is to mix our current capitalist dystopia with as much socialist policies as possible. Many countries in the EU are doing thay and it seems to be working pretty well. Let’s just copy and build on that, then worry about the next steps.
So transferring property and land from private and semi-state actors to rich speculators for pennies on the dollar? The French Revolution wasn’t very notable on the wealth redistribution front; if anything it made the rich even richer.
I think this is an argument against any system without checks and balances. Capitalism has some great features, but it absolutely needs regulations to prevent the wealthiest class from abusing it. Same can be said about socialism.
Checks and balances needs to be a core part of the design of any system. I think a function of fascism is to get rid of those checks and balances.
The problem is that you can use wealth and power to chip at (or on a good day take a sledgehammer at) those checks and balances, resulting in an inevitable shift form social democracy to fascism. Checks and balances are addons you layer onto the economic system at work that can change its workings to an extent but not fundamentally alter it; they can’t be core to the system due to their very nature. That’s why socialists (which, BTW, socialism is a wide category of systems characterized by the lack of private property and accumulation of wealth, not one particular system) call for the complete abolition of capitalism; whether you agree with that or not “but checks and balances” isn’t an adequate response.
It doesn’t because the power and needs of the many are aligned in socialism and that’s not the case in capitalism
Within capitalism you need checks and balances so that the ruling class aka capitalist class doesn’t put their “needs” (more like desires”) above the needs of the majority
Within socialism the ruling class is the majority by definition they can’t exploit the system in their favor because that’s literally how it’s supposed to work.
I get that in a utopian society, you are correct. But it’s not impossible for somebody to gain power and abuse this system. The socialist society would need to set up rules to prevent this from happening.
Ofc but those rules are there by design and are natural to the system
If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out
With capitalism you don’t have this natural control. You put in checks and balances that will fail eventually as they always did and then you’re screwed.
I think that’s the argument against capitalism though because if you have a system from which all power is financial eventually those with the power will erode the safeguards that prevent them from absorbing a disproportionate amount of the wealth. You literally handing a loaded gun to those most dangerous with it.
Ultimately any economical and Political system will struggle with this. Capitalism can work if you have a taxation and redistribution of the wealth. Otherwise all wealth eventually congregates like mass in a black hole. Simultaneously you can have a system that might have fairer basic ideals but ends up just as corrupt. See the various attempts at communism.
The tricky part is the vigilance. Imagine a Musk raising his arm for a hearty ‘sieg heil’ in 1945-80. Now he got away with it. Generations forget. Safeguards get erroded away over time as the greedy goblins hammer away at them like woodpeckers.
The loaded gun is always there. The dangerous men always try to get to it. We gotta guard it 24/7. Not an easy task.
Capitalism that you mention that could work was the capitalism we had until the 70s and it’s what lead us to the late stage capitalism we have today
Even if you reset you will end up at this stage because accumulation of wealth and thus power will always occur and then the capitalist class has both the means and incentive to change the rules of the system and then they get more wealth and power etc etc
You can’t guard it unless you have power and under capitalism you don’t.
You gave the loaded gun to the capitalist class and then try to force them to do the “right” thing and not use the gun for bad stuff, except they have the gun… they’re not going to listen to you
Communism could also work if… human nature wasn’t as it is People are simply too asshole-y for capitalism to work as intended.
But isn’t the problem rather that people can be easily convinced to vote against their self-interest? It seems the people at large are not selfish enough, and the rich are too selfish?
In other words, the problem is that those that don’t have, don’t want to have strongly enough, and those that already have, want to have too much. As an overarching group, not individually, of course.
It’s that those who don’t have can be easily convinced to (attempt to) have at the expense of their fellow have-nots than to unite against the haves.
Thou speaketh the truth. I wonder if there is some way to convince people not to listen to the siren song of “maybe billionaire one day”
Convince people an alternative than the shameful ladder of capitalism can work, and you’ll have a chance.
Capitalism is a funnel. Money goes from those without capital to those with capital. Simple as.
It has always been like this. For a lot of people this is a feature and not a bug.
It’s also the most productive economic system ever tried.
Everyone talks about regulation, or semi-socialism, or various other bandaids to make it work. But if you don’t remove the funnel action, it’ll eventually get to this state.
More likely, capitalism needs periods of major collapse and rebuild as major wealth redistribution events. French-style.
I think whether this is true highly depends on the definition of productivity and circumstances.
What definition of productivity are we applying here? Capitalism sure is great at inflating useless statistics. It also seems to be decent for actually valuable products and services. However, depending on what you take into account, it’s not so clear that it’s the superior system.
Furthermore, there have been several cases of socialist governments improving the quality of life at a rate never seen in capitalist countries. Almost completely eradicating illiteracy in less than a year (Cuba). Or vaccinating half the population in a few months (Burkina Faso). Of course, those governments are rare and don’t last long thanks to the CIA.
Personally I’d say the most immediate solution - or more accurately, improvement - is to mix our current capitalist dystopia with as much socialist policies as possible. Many countries in the EU are doing thay and it seems to be working pretty well. Let’s just copy and build on that, then worry about the next steps.
So transferring property and land from private and semi-state actors to rich speculators for pennies on the dollar? The French Revolution wasn’t very notable on the wealth redistribution front; if anything it made the rich even richer.
I think this is an argument against any system without checks and balances. Capitalism has some great features, but it absolutely needs regulations to prevent the wealthiest class from abusing it. Same can be said about socialism.
Checks and balances needs to be a core part of the design of any system. I think a function of fascism is to get rid of those checks and balances.
The problem is that you can use wealth and power to chip at (or on a good day take a sledgehammer at) those checks and balances, resulting in an inevitable shift form social democracy to fascism. Checks and balances are addons you layer onto the economic system at work that can change its workings to an extent but not fundamentally alter it; they can’t be core to the system due to their very nature. That’s why socialists (which, BTW, socialism is a wide category of systems characterized by the lack of private property and accumulation of wealth, not one particular system) call for the complete abolition of capitalism; whether you agree with that or not “but checks and balances” isn’t an adequate response.
My point is that even socialism needs checks and balances. And everything you said applies even to Socialism.
It doesn’t because the power and needs of the many are aligned in socialism and that’s not the case in capitalism
Within capitalism you need checks and balances so that the ruling class aka capitalist class doesn’t put their “needs” (more like desires”) above the needs of the majority
Within socialism the ruling class is the majority by definition they can’t exploit the system in their favor because that’s literally how it’s supposed to work.
So no, it’s very different
I get that in a utopian society, you are correct. But it’s not impossible for somebody to gain power and abuse this system. The socialist society would need to set up rules to prevent this from happening.
Ofc but those rules are there by design and are natural to the system
If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out
With capitalism you don’t have this natural control. You put in checks and balances that will fail eventually as they always did and then you’re screwed.