What's Wrong with Capitalism (Part 1) | ContraPoints - General

[QUOTE=srobins;53018840]So.. Capitalist society is imperfect, and the solution to that is..?[/QUOTE] UBI? Doesn't make things perfect but it does seem to work pretty well in the places where it's implemented. But then again turbocapitalists will say it's impossible because it goes against their own interests. Can't exploit people and pay them with peanuts when they don't have to accept it to survive.

[QUOTE=srobins;53018840]You want socialism but can't point to any state that exhibits it working well[/QUOTE] I don't get why Americans say this (assuming that's where you are from, it's hard surviving in this post flag dog apocalypse) There are plenty of places in Europe where certain aspects of life are [i]miles[/i] ahead of the USA due to socialist policy, Healthcare being a very very good example. Most of the time when people critique capitalism in it's current form, they aren't asking for the whole thing to be thrown out and something new raised from the ashes- they just want some consideration for the social cost to the people currently exploited or otherwise failed by the system.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53027841]I don't get why Americans say this (assuming that's where you are from, it's hard surviving in this post flag dog apocalypse) There are plenty of places in Europe where certain aspects of life are [i]miles[/i] ahead of the USA due to socialist policy, Healthcare being a very very good example. Most of the time when people critique capitalism in it's current form, they aren't asking for the whole thing to be thrown out and something new raised from the ashes- they just want some consideration for the social cost to the people currently exploited or otherwise failed by the system.[/QUOTE] It's because socialism has been demonized to just be straight up communism in this country. And the straight-to-the-gulag all christians must die type of communism.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53028139]It's because socialism has been demonized to just be straight up communism in this country. And the straight-to-the-gulag all christians must die type of communism.[/QUOTE] Its evolved to all government is bad, I had a coworker who thought all taxes were theft and should be criminalized. I just stared at him until he became uncomfortable and walked away.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53027841]I don't get why Americans say this (assuming that's where you are from, it's hard surviving in this post flag dog apocalypse) There are plenty of places in Europe where certain aspects of life are [I]miles[/I] ahead of the USA due to socialist policy, Healthcare being a very very good example. Most of the time when people critique capitalism in it's current form, they aren't asking for the whole thing to be thrown out and something new raised from the ashes- they just want some consideration for the social cost to the people currently exploited or otherwise failed by the system.[/QUOTE] To be fair he was probably referring to OG socialism as laid out by people like Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, etc. and not European social democracy/mixed economy. We already have some of it ofc, and could use more. Although you are probably right on that last bit. A lot of polls often indicate that the majority of young people identify as socialists, but from my experiences of talking to people and reading the internet, most of them really do just sort of look at Europe/Canada and say "yeah, that's socialism give us some of that."

I do think that my biggest gripe with anti-capitalists [and if any of you know me on this forum, you know I'm a hardcore leftist] is that the method and solution for capitalist's ills are always so vague ("Feed the poor!", "Collective Ownership!") Very rarely to people have actual concrete plans to go about reducing inequality and producing a more just, egalitarian world. Thats what irks me when people are like "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!" its like .... are you throwing out everything? what parts are you keeping? rather than starting from scratch, how about we reform and improve the world we live in with small important policy decision rather than a catch-all-critique that sounds a lot like the underpants gnomes [QUOTE=Levi Bryant,larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/] Phase 1: Ultra-Radical Critique Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Revolution and complete social transformation![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Flameon;53028602]I do think that my biggest gripe with anti-capitalists [and if any of you know me on this forum, you know I'm a hardcore leftist] is that the method and solution for capitalist's ills are always so vague ("Feed the poor!", "Collective Ownership!") Very rarely to people have actual concrete plans to go about reducing inequality and producing a more just, egalitarian world. Thats what irks me when people are like "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!" its like .... are you throwing out everything? what parts are you keeping? rather than starting from scratch, how about we reform and improve the world we live in with small important policy decision rather than a catch-all-critique that sounds a lot like the underpants gnomes[/QUOTE] Literally no one is saying we should start from scratch. We should just be more critical of certain aspects of capitalism.

[QUOTE=Skusty;53019155]Then why is it that people are living the streets? Is it because they can't find a job? Is it that their mental or medical status is interfering with their ability to keep a job? I would rather see the homeless be given the means to help themselves, rather than just the government taking their bill (which seem to be the answer that I have picked up as the most common), if you have nothing to live for, you will not work for a living. This may sound very morbid and dark, but I think it's difficult to place people back in society once they totally have lost their belief in our way of life. A common stereotype is that ex-cons don't fall back to criminality once they have found love or religion, I think that is the case with the homeless people, if they find something to fight for, they will do it, but if there is nothing to fight for, why not just give it all up. Don't take this as I don't want to help people out, but just paying for people's existence is not going to solve the problem in the long run, because then the mindset will be "someone will pay for me anyway" and lead to a greater increase of people in need. There are no easy answers to this, but I don't think that the simple answer of buying them out is the right one.[/QUOTE] People are living on the streets because, in many situations, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone. Let's look at some statistics for Australia: [url]http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6354.0Main+Features1Aug%202017?OpenDocument[/url] Total job vacancies in August 2017: about 200,000 (estimated) [url]http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/7F69BA7720C8AFBCCA2581BD000FCC73?opendocument[/url] Total unemployed people seeking work in August 2017: 723,000 Even if all those job vacancies were filled overnight, there would still be over half a million people unemployed. What are those half a million people supposed to do?

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;53028638]People are living on the streets because, in many situations, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone. Let's look at some statistics for Australia: [URL]http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6354.0Main+Features1Aug 2017?OpenDocument[/URL] Total job vacancies in August 2017: about 200,000 (estimated) [URL]http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/7F69BA7720C8AFBCCA2581BD000FCC73?opendocument[/URL] Total unemployed people seeking work in August 2017: 723,000 Even if all those job vacancies were filled overnight, there would still be over half a million people unemployed. What are those half a million people supposed to do?[/QUOTE] In a decently healthy economy, those ~500,000 wouldn't be some static group. It would be constantly shifting and changing as people lose their job and others get a job. Those living on the streets are generally a much smaller percentage who are habitually unemployed because of physical or mental health and drug addiction issues.

Everyone should realize capitalism can come in a lot of different forms. The Nordic countries and most of Europe are still capitalist, just with heavy taxation and welfare. You should also realize that the reason you perceive the world getting worse is because everyone is now a lot more aware of world events and disparities. In 1921 an incredibly prosperous black community in my hometown was burnt down in a race riot. People were literally firebombing the district from the air in personal planes. No one heard about it for decades because few people covered crimes against vulnerable people at the time, and certainly not on an international level. Now, if a cop shoots an unarmed man, you're likely to hear about it for several days, if not months. As a whole, life has massively improved worldwide over the last century. If you had told someone in 1900 that by 2017 more people would die of suicide each year than from war and homicide combined you'd have been laughed off. For the first time in history, your country going into total war is a completely unthinkable event for the vast majority of the world's population. tl;dr don't criticize capitalism because one country does it poorly, the world is better than it ever has been before, everyone's just much more aware of the bad things happening in the world.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53028677]Everyone should realize capitalism can come in a lot of different forms. The Nordic countries and most of Europe are still capitalist, just with heavy taxation and welfare. You should also realize that the reason you perceive the world getting worse is because everyone is now a lot more aware of world events and disparities. In 1921 an incredibly prosperous black community in my hometown was burnt down in a race riot. People were literally firebombing the district from the air in personal planes. No one heard about it for decades because few people covered crimes against vulnerable people at the time, and certainly not on an international level. Now, if a cop shoots an unarmed man, you're likely to hear about it for several days, if not months. As a whole, life has massively improved worldwide over the last century. If you had told someone in 1900 that by 2017 more people would die of suicide each year than from war and homicide combined you'd have been laughed off. For the first time in history, your country going into total war is a completely unthinkable event for the vast majority of the world's population. tl;dr don't criticize capitalism because one country does it poorly, the world is better than it ever has been before, everyone's just much more aware of the bad things happening in the world.[/QUOTE] We're more educated, and informed fiefdoms. That's an improvement but we can do a lot better, and should.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53028677]Everyone should realize capitalism can come in a lot of different forms. The Nordic countries and most of Europe are still capitalist, just with heavy taxation and welfare. You should also realize that the reason you perceive the world getting worse is because everyone is now a lot more aware of world events and disparities. In 1921 an incredibly prosperous black community in my hometown was burnt down in a race riot. People were literally firebombing the district from the air in personal planes. No one heard about it for decades because few people covered crimes against vulnerable people at the time, and certainly not on an international level. Now, if a cop shoots an unarmed man, you're likely to hear about it for several days, if not months. As a whole, life has massively improved worldwide over the last century. If you had told someone in 1900 that by 2017 more people would die of suicide each year than from war and homicide combined you'd have been laughed off. For the first time in history, your country going into total war is a completely unthinkable event for the vast majority of the world's population. tl;dr don't criticize capitalism because one country does it poorly, the world is better than it ever has been before, everyone's just much more aware of the bad things happening in the world.[/QUOTE] Inequalities are greater than they ever were before, and with that the centralization of power that threatens democracy. Irreversible environmental impact is greater than it ever was before, to an incredibly unsustainable point that [I]threatens the survival of humanity itself.[/I] No. The world isn't better than it ever has been before. It might seem that way to people who are sheltered enough from the consequences, but that shelter won't hold up for very long. We need to fix this shit system.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53028681]We're more educated, and informed fiefdoms. That's an improvement but we can do a lot better, and should.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. But we've made huge progress, even if it's hard to see that. "The world is better off than it has ever been before" isn't the same as "The world is the best that it can possibly be." There's still massive room for improvement. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;53028704]Inequalities are greater than they ever were before, and with that the centralization of power that threatens democracy. Irreversible environmental impact is greater than it ever was before, to an incredibly unsustainable point that [I]threatens the survival of humanity itself.[/I] No. The world isn't better than it ever has been before. [/QUOTE] Inequality isn't a measure of wealth/quality of life. I'm not sure if that claim is accurate if we're counting all of history and not just the modern era. Global median wealth and well-being has increased massively following World War II. Can you name a point in history where the average human was better off than they are today? You speak of threats to democracy. For most of history democracy wasn't present in most of the world. Only since World War II have a huge portion of countries adopted it, along with capitalism. If anything democracy is on the rise.

My views on the whole capitalism/communism thing are simple. Have a society where the balance of power favours corporations and you get a messed-up arrangement like the United States. Having no single-payer healthcare system really ought to classify a country as third world, imo. Have a society where the balance of power greatly favours the State instead and you get dictatorships like Turkey or Venezuela. So no, I'm not at all in favour of Marxism, nor John Locke-style liberalism, because both strike me as incredibly naive. One must always make the assumption that any individual or group with too much power in a system will constantly try to gather more and more of that power, until the entire system is rigged to benefit them and them alone. So I'm more in favour of social democracies - where capitalism is fine, but the largest load of taxation is placed primarily on the extremely wealthy, and a government's money is put largely into social security, education and healthcare - they'll still be better off than anyone else by far, and will be able to live a live a life of ridiculous opulence and luxury - but you won't have a disappearing middle class and a working class growing out of all control either, because agency of some sort will be given back to the masses. Maybe that in itself in a naive view - maybe such a system would only be transitory, until the wealthy started greasing the right palms to rig the game in their favour once again. But really, what else is there? I mean, the Nordic states seem to be doing well, aren't they?

[QUOTE=Harbie;53028726]Inequality isn't a measure of wealth/quality of life.[/quote] It is a measure of relative power. [Quote]I'm not sure if that claim is accurate if we're counting all of history and not just the modern era. Global median wealth and well-being has increased massively following World War II. Can you name a point in history where the average human was better off than they are today? You speak of threats to democracy. For most of history democracy wasn't present in most of the world. Only since World War II have a huge portion of countries adopted it, along with capitalism. If anything democracy is on the rise.[/QUOTE] It is not on the rise. Interest groups are more and more powerful and hold a tight grip on democracy. They lobby for tax breaks, loopholes that let them accrue even more money, and thus power. And those interests take precedence over the will of the people. I see you haven't addressed the environmental issue. It's hard to argue that our world is at its best when it's going in a direction that's going to turn it into a shithole sooner rather than later.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53028762]It is a measure of relative power. It is not on the rise. Interest groups are more and more powerful and hold a tight grip on democracy. They lobby for tax breaks, loopholes that let them accrue even more money, and thus power. And those interests take precedence over the will of the people. I see you haven't addressed the environmental issue. It's hard to argue that our world is at its best when it's going in a direction that's going to turn it into a shithole sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE] Climate change is an issue. I'm confident that technology will allow us to mitigate or reverse many of the negative effects sometime this century. Don't get me wrong, it will likely kill millions. But I think that that's still preferable to the widespread wars, famines, and plagues that used to regularly kill huge portions of the population. On democracy: [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_of_nations_1800-2003_scoring_8_or_higher_on_Polity_IV_scale.png[/IMG] The Polity IV scale is a widely used measure of democracy. I'm speaking in global terms, not just the US or Europe. If you think interest groups are bad now, you'd likely be pretty upset with voting laws pre civil rights movement. You still have yet to name an era where the average or median person was better off.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53028778]You still have yet to name an era where the average or median person was better off.[/QUOTE] I never claimed there was. You said the world is better than it ever has been before, and it isn't, nor is the direction it's taking. [Quote]Climate change is an issue. I'm confident that technology will allow us to mitigate or reverse many of the negative effects sometime this century.[/quote] Blind confidence in technological advancement is naive, and shows how little one knows about how technology develops in the first place. Technology isn't a god. There are things it can do, and others it can't, no matter how advanced. There's no evidence that shows reverting Earth back to a livable state for humans after fucking it up is technologically feasible. Even if it were, we would still have to attain this technological level, something that's hard to achieve when global warming ruined the economy, depleted our resources and survival becomes the main priority. To "reverse the negative effects of climate change" is a pipe dream until proven otherwise. And our current economic system does nothing to prevent it. It is its cause. [Quote]Don't get me wrong, it will likely kill millions. But I think that that's still preferable to the widespread wars, famines, and plagues that used to regularly kill huge portions of the population.[/quote] And that's exactly what's going to happen once global warming has irreversibly altered our environment. Only this time it will be the norm rather than an irregular occurence. At least in the past, none of this threatened the survival of humanity. There could be a famine in Europe, but people in the Americas would live a year like any other. Catastrophic events would only occur in spurts, leaving time for the survivors to recover. Now they will be global and permanent. Your complacency condemns the generations that will follow ours. To persuade yourself that their burden won't be a much heavier one to carry than our ancestors' is an insult to them, as is your blind faith in our flawed system.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53028826]I never claimed there was. You said the world is better than it ever has been before, and it isn't, nor is the direction it's taking.[/QUOTE] How is saying that the world isn't better than it ever has been before different from saying there used to be a time when people were better off? Those seems basically equivalent.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53028839]How is saying that the world isn't better than it ever has been before different from saying there used to be a time when people were better off? Those seems basically equivalent.[/QUOTE] Would you say that someone who's extremely high on drugs and happy but is on the verge of dying from overdose is in a good situation? There's more to the world being "good" than people's immediate living conditions. Whether the human race still has a future is also an important criterion.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53028863][B]Would you say that someone who's extremely high on drugs and happy but is on the verge of dying from overdose is in a good situation?[/B] There's more to the world being "good" than people's immediate living conditions. Whether the human race still has a future is also an important criterion.[/QUOTE] false equivalence there. Yeah, there are good things, and bad things. Overall we're are better than any other point in history but there are a lot of things to improve.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;53028635]Literally no one is saying we should start from scratch. We should just be more critical of certain aspects of capitalism.[/QUOTE] you are incredibly wrong that no one is saying we should start from scratch, you just exist in a very different political silo than I do

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;53029025]false equivalence there.[/quote] It isn't. Much like a drug high, our current way of life is unsustainable, and we're getting closer and closer to overdose. Once we break this world we live in, there's no going back. [Quote]Yeah, there are good things, and bad things. Overall we're are better than any other point in history but there are a lot of things to improve.[/QUOTE] We're on the verge of triggering a global crisis of unprecedented scale because of our current system, how can you argue that this is a good situation? It's not about "good things and bad things". As if higher personal comfort (which, again, isn't even the case for everybody) could compensate for the extinction of the human race...

[QUOTE=_Axel;53029999]As if higher personal comfort (which, again, isn't even the case for everybody) could compensate for the extinction of the human race...[/QUOTE] Humans aren't even close to being in danger of extinction. Civilizational collapse, sure, these things happen. But climate change is not going to threaten out existence as species. We lived through the ice age and we were cavemen back then, scattered on just a couple of continents. Even if we suddenly turned everything into battery acid, we as a species would probably survive that. There is no way anything related to ecology is going to actually kill us. We are too strong at this point. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take care of the environment, but fear-mongering like what you're doing isn't super helpful either.

Honestly the whole "we are doing better than ever so stop complaining!" attitude isn't a good one. If the people of the past decided they were doing better than cavemen so they should just stop trying to make things better, we would never have reached this point. We should never stop striving to improve.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53030551]We should never stop striving to improve.[/QUOTE] Indeed. But does that require ditching capitalism entirely? Because that's what's really at issue here. People are refuting the idea that the imperfect nature of our society is a reasonable justification for throwing out our current economic system in its entirety. While it is true that American capitalism is fucked in many ways, it does not necessarily follow that this is because of some inherent flaw in allowing people to sell goods for a profit. Other countries with capitalist economies do not have the problems we do, because they have strong central governments that have not bowed to corporate pressure.

[QUOTE]Even if we suddenly turned everything into battery acid, we as a species would probably survive that.[/QUOTE] No. This overconfidence in technology needs to stop. We aren't invulnerable just because we have brains. We're adaptable, but we still need a livable environment to transform and make use of. We aren't psychics who can materialize resources out of thin air. [QUOTE=WhyNott;53030083]Humans aren't even close to being in danger of extinction. Civilizational collapse, sure, these things happen. But climate change is not going to threaten out existence as species. We lived through the ice age and we were cavemen back then, scattered on just a couple of continents. There is no way anything related to ecology is going to actually kill us. We are too strong at this point.[/QUOTE] We're not "too strong". Our cerebral potential isn't really much better than our ancestors', their capabilities and thoughts were simply focused on survival. Our ability to be specialized, our education, we owe all of what makes us feel strong to our civilization, which is utterly dependent on the environment. Civilization collapsing would take all of that away from us and we'll be back to square one, except this time in a much worse environment than we started with. We've been on the verge of extinction early on in our history, and humans have never experienced a mass extinction event before. Without a civilization to support us, I don't see how we could survive one. I'm really starting to think the real name of the great filter is hubris. [QUOTE]That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take care of the environment, but fear-mongering like what you're doing isn't super helpful either.[/QUOTE] Facing the facts instead of going in an unsubstantiated "humanity fuck yeah" tirade and putting blind faith in our ability to recover is not fear-mongering. This circle-jerk about claiming capitalism put us in a "better situation than ever" while ignoring the wall it's driving us right into is short-sighted.

This video opens in the worst way possible. "What did these people die for?" They were killed by terrorists. They didn't have a choice. Jesus.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53030766]No. This overconfidence in technology needs to stop. We aren't invulnerable just because we have brains. We're adaptable, but we still need a livable environment to transform and make use of. We aren't psychics who can materialize resources out of thin air. We're not "too strong". Our cerebral potential isn't really much better than our ancestors', their capabilities and thoughts were simply focused on survival. Our ability to be specialized, our education, we owe all of what makes us feel strong to our civilization, which is utterly dependent on the environment. Civilization collapsing would take all of that away from us and we'll be back to square one, except this time in a much worse environment than we started with. We've been on the verge of extinction early on in our history, and humans have never experienced a mass extinction event before. Without a civilization to support us, I don't see how we could survive one. I'm really starting to think the real name of the great filter is hubris. Facing the facts instead of going in an unsubstantiated "humanity fuck yeah" tirade and putting blind faith in our ability to recover is not fear-mongering. This circle-jerk about claiming capitalism put us in a "better situation than ever" while ignoring the wall it's driving us right into is short-sighted.[/QUOTE] First of all, the term "civilasational collapse" does not mean the end of civilisation understood as a chain of knowledge and culture, just the organization and society. Even if society collapses, we will still not "go back to square one". Most of our science and knowledge will likely still prevail, depending who gets to be saved. Second of all, you're forgeting that the any impending ecological catastrophe will not come without the warining signs. Right now its easy for people to believe that climate change doesnt exist, or that its natural, or whatever. Once thousands of people start loosing homes and/or lives, this will be much harder, if only just because people will look for someone to take responsibility for it. Assuming that wont be enough to turn the public opinion enough to start taking things seriously and mitigate the risk of further disaster, you can bet that every rich 1% asshole and governemnt that isnt a complete insane is either gonna invest in ways to save their asses in case shit hits the fan, be it contengency plans or shelters. A nuclear war was a much more viable threat because of how sudden and immiediate it could be. Any ecological disaster will give us plenty of time to prepare. All of it is obviously based on the assumption that our ecological problems can actually result in a major civilisation-ending disaster, which Im not completely convinced could even happen at this point.

People saying "capitalism is the best we've got"... Isn't it the capitalist spirit to go, 'sure, this is great but how can we get [B]more[/B]?' Why can we have that spirit go from 'more money for those who already have too much to spend' to 'more educated, secure, healthy, happy people with all the support they need just in case'?

[QUOTE=WhyNott;53031524]First of all, the term "civilasational collapse" does not mean the end of civilisation understood as a chain of knowledge and culture, just the organization and society. Even if society collapses, we will still not "go back to square one". Most of our science and knowledge will likely still prevail, depending who gets to be saved. Second of all, you're forgeting that the any impending ecological catastrophe will not come without the warining signs. Right now its easy for people to believe that climate change doesnt exist, or that its natural, or whatever. Once thousands of people start loosing homes and/or lives, this will be much harder, if only just because people will look for someone to take responsibility for it. Assuming that wont be enough to turn the public opinion enough to start taking things seriously and mitigate the risk of further disaster, you can bet that every rich 1% asshole and governemnt that isnt a complete insane is either gonna invest in ways to save their asses in case shit hits the fan, be it contengency plans or shelters. A nuclear war was a much more viable threat because of how sudden and immiediate it could be. Any ecological disaster will give us plenty of time to prepare. All of it is obviously based on the assumption that our ecological problems can actually result in a major civilisation-ending disaster, which Im not completely convinced could even happen at this point.[/QUOTE] Note: We were past the point of now return, 5 years ago, as warned 10 years ago.