4 ms·

Hah, exactly. Capitalism is not perfect; apparently it is the better of the alternatives we have right now. In order to effect fundamental change, and find a

by sridca 7y ago

Hah, exactly. Capitalism is not perfect; apparently it is the better of the alternatives we have right now. In order to effect fundamental change, and find a better alternative to capitalism, each human being needs to fundamentally change themselves--yet apparently no one is willing to do that. As long as we let instinctual passions like desire, and social emotions like envy, hold sway over us so will continue to exist institutions like capitalism and fashion. And forced change (like socialism), without fundamentally addressing the underlying human condition, wouldn't achieve anything fruitful as evidenced from history.

p1esk 7y ago
Don’t know why this is being downvoted. To someone who witnessed the transition from forced “socialism” to brutal capitalism in Russia it makes total sense.
- sridca 7y ago
  > Don't know why this is being downvoted The key answer is contained in my comment -- to wit: "yet apparently no one is willing to do that [fundamentally change themselves]". Even most intelligently people, the demographics of HN, are unwilling ... hence the (mindless) downvotes.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  Probably being downvoted because of the implied stark "socialism/capitalism" dichotomy, and describing the need for a fundamental change of human nature, and the downvoters have seen that a regulated capitalist economy with a strong social safety net seem to work pretty well. :)
ace_of_spades 7y ago
What does capitalism actually mean, though? Do you mean capitalism in the US, Canada, France, Germany, China? All have private property, profit oriented companies and markets... It’s such a broad term it’s probably completely useless and it leads you down a false dichotomy. There are significant differences between existing systems and many possible new approaches to taxation and social order in the pipeline. For example, have a look at the book radical markets by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl to get a taste of what is possible in terms of legislative innovations. So, I am not against and all for personal change and growth but absolving the economic system from change doesn’t make this task any easier. Humans are to a huge extent a product of their environment and it is certainly in everyones best interest to design “humane” or “prosocial” systems which allow humans to thrive and cooperate.

by sridca 7y ago

p1esk 7y ago

Don’t know why this is being downvoted. To someone who witnessed the transition from forced “socialism” to brutal capitalism in Russia it makes total sense.

sridca 7y ago
> Don't know why this is being downvoted The key answer is contained in my comment -- to wit: "yet apparently no one is willing to do that [fundamentally change themselves]". Even most intelligently people, the demographics of HN, are unwilling ... hence the (mindless) downvotes.
objectivetruth 7y ago
Probably being downvoted because of the implied stark "socialism/capitalism" dichotomy, and describing the need for a fundamental change of human nature, and the downvoters have seen that a regulated capitalist economy with a strong social safety net seem to work pretty well. :)

ace_of_spades 7y ago

What does capitalism actually mean, though? Do you mean capitalism in the US, Canada, France, Germany, China? All have private property, profit oriented companies and markets... It’s such a broad term it’s probably completely useless and it leads you down a false dichotomy. There are significant differences between existing systems and many possible new approaches to taxation and social order in the pipeline. For example, have a look at the book radical markets by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl to get a taste of what is possible in terms of legislative innovations. So, I am not against and all for personal change and growth but absolving the economic system from change doesn’t make this task any easier. Humans are to a huge extent a product of their environment and it is certainly in everyones best interest to design “humane” or “prosocial” systems which allow humans to thrive and cooperate.