3 ms·

Slavery and genocide didn't suddenly appear at the same time as capitalism as you and I would recognize. Capitalism means free markets. Free markets means free

Slavery and genocide didn't suddenly appear at the same time as capitalism as you and I would recognize. Capitalism means free markets. Free markets means freedom to buy, sell and invest. Freedoms must be protected, and the freest markets have the strongest protections for person and property. Freedom and security go hand in hand. If capitalism is responsible for slavery and genocide, then it's also responsible for eradicating slavery and genocide within its sphere. Alternative economic systems don't magically promote human rights. Let's discuss the gap between rich and poor in China or Cuba. Or ethnic suppression and genocide in the USSR or China. Or endemic racism in Cuba. Or systematic impoverishment of millions of people in oligarchies across Africa and South America. I'm still waiting for socialist systems to make a billion people freer and happier, instead of dead, impoverished or imprisoned.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Capitalism means free markets. No, it's a model of property rights. “Free markets” are a slogan, but not even a particularly coherent concept much less a concrete thing that is present in capitalism.
globe1337 8y ago
There has never existed a "free market" in the libertarian ideal sense; markets are only able to exist under the system of a government.
- antocv 8y ago
  This response sounds like "there has never been communism under real communism ideal sense", lel.
  - Vraxx 8y ago
    yeah, it does sound a bit like that, but when you factor in the reasons why a free market has never (and in my opinion should never) exist there starts to be a difference. Things like regulatory capture, monopolies, and exploitation of any possible resource are all systemic effects of capitalism. When capital (power) begets more capital (power), it should be no surprise that tactics that are underhanded but ultimately grant more capital (power) are the ones chose and that the system tends towards a consolidation of power in those that have more of it already. It's not saying anybody with money or power will automatically do those things, just that the system is set up to encourage that, so somebody probably will at some point. To me, it's similar to looking at a voting system like first past the post and identifying that the system tends towards two parties as a fundamental nature of the system. Underlying motives and strategies of individuals within the system will produce this effect. I'm not commention on the validity of the "no real communism" statement here, just the comparison of it to the "no real free market"

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Capitalism means free markets. No, it's a model of property rights. “Free markets” are a slogan, but not even a particularly coherent concept much less a concrete thing that is present in capitalism.

globe1337 8y ago

There has never existed a "free market" in the libertarian ideal sense; markets are only able to exist under the system of a government.

antocv 8y ago
This response sounds like "there has never been communism under real communism ideal sense", lel.
- Vraxx 8y ago
  yeah, it does sound a bit like that, but when you factor in the reasons why a free market has never (and in my opinion should never) exist there starts to be a difference. Things like regulatory capture, monopolies, and exploitation of any possible resource are all systemic effects of capitalism. When capital (power) begets more capital (power), it should be no surprise that tactics that are underhanded but ultimately grant more capital (power) are the ones chose and that the system tends towards a consolidation of power in those that have more of it already. It's not saying anybody with money or power will automatically do those things, just that the system is set up to encourage that, so somebody probably will at some point. To me, it's similar to looking at a voting system like first past the post and identifying that the system tends towards two parties as a fundamental nature of the system. Underlying motives and strategies of individuals within the system will produce this effect. I'm not commention on the validity of the "no real communism" statement here, just the comparison of it to the "no real free market"