5 ms·
> Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing and instead empowered it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its flaws and disgusting habits, i
by dieppe 9y ago
> Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing and instead empowered it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its flaws and disgusting habits, is the only system that is able to empower and uplift more people from poverty than all other systems COMBINED.
I disagree. Capitalism has not empowered people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation) and does not uplift people from poverty. Human kind is now able to produce so much that extreme poverty should not even exist anymore. We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time? We produce enough food for hunger to disappear on a global scale, and yet we prefer to burn or stock what cannot be sold because we care more about the exchange value of things than the lives it could save. We could use machines instead of workers in mines (like in Congo), but we prefer to send workers through toxic muds because we care more about profit than the lives of these workers.
I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a positive impact (mostly due as you said to socialism and the fact that workers actually fought to soften their living conditions), but look at it globally. And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most "advanced" countries.
- demonshalo 9y agoPay attention ladies and gents. This here is known as cognitive dissonance. > Capitalism has not empowered people and does not uplift people from poverty. Alright. So this is a definite statement. A conclusion. hmm interesting, lets's continue reading to see what reasoning this follows from. > We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time? Ok so, capitalism created RICH countries, yet it did not uplift people form poverty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I were you, I would try to state my position a bit better because you sound completely self-contradicting. What you mean to say is that capitalism have created a lot of wealth, but it hasn't evenly distributed it. >I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a positive impact ooh look. That IS the EXACT OPPOSITE statement to the first one you made. Wow... See, the reason I hate debating leftists is that they start by rejecting your statement and move on to actually PROVE IT but provide some context in which it does not satisfy what they deem to be "fair". Well, here is the thing chap. If the Congo had capitalism, the Congo would reap the benefits of that capitalism as you PROVED above that it has. It just so happens that the poorest places in the world at the least capitalistic ones. Must be a coincidence right?! > And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most "advanced" countries. facepalm
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]