4 ms·

As much as I admire the effort to provide tools to oppressed people, I would strongly oppose this group. Capitalism and market economics are the single greates

by aneth 16y ago

As much as I admire the effort to provide tools to oppressed people, I would strongly oppose this group. Capitalism and market economics are the single greatest tool for raising living standards, liberating people from oppression, and unleashing human creativity for the common good. Destruction of capitalism would bring the worst forms of oppression, from ignorance, to disease, to fascism.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jhancock 16y ago
I'm with you if you simply take the 'ism' off capital. The ism part implies or at least condones extremism. Capital is a fine tool; one which can and is being abused. A little moderation goes a long way.
Qz 16y ago
The single greatest tool for raising living standards is human ingenuity, which has been around for thousands upon thousands of years longer than capitalism has been around. Capitalism has its pros, but it also has substantial cons, and it's dangerous to go around blindly proclaiming capitalism as the solution to the world's woes.
- aneth 16y ago
  At it's core, capitalism is an incentive system to innovate and distribute innovation. Human ingenuity is not sufficient in-and-of itself. Without being rewarded for giving your innovations to others, inventions are less likely to arise or be widely adopted.
jscn 16y ago
"Free people create free markets. Free markets do not necessarily create free people.” - Gupta’s Libertarian Observation
mcantelon 16y ago
I think it depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. Capitalism in a truly free market, in which all players are equal, is one thing, but crony capitalism, in which oligarchs use the state to keep the game rigged in their favor, is not conducive to innovation. Capitalism without oligarchy seems to me as much of a fantasy as communism without an oppressive state.
- aneth 16y ago
  That's corruption, not capitalism. And corruption is far worse in non-capitalist states, although the spoils are much smaller in magnitude. And I'm not opposed to regulation or in favor of pure laissez faire markets. I would add an important point though. In China, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 30 years, a modern miracle, simply by introducing well regulated capitalism to the economy. This despite the fact that billions are siphoned off through corruption and "crony capitalism." Many will look at this and rightly point out how unfair and unjust this is, however most Chinese would rather have a few, even many, rich corrupt official than the old state run distribution system, because now is overwhelmingly better for most Chinese than then. The overall effect is enormously positive, and nitpicking corruption that falls through the cracks is misguided. Corruption unjustly gives some more wealth than they deserve in every country - capitalism just means the pie is bigger.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    True... and as China is lifted out of poverty, the US standard of living is decreasing because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without (enabled by a lack of regulation which is, in turn, a result of corruption). It seems that in speaking of "capitalism", some are speaking of capitalism as a distribution system (which is entirely sensible) and some are speaking of Capitalism as a philosophy (which, more or less, idealizes the law of the jungle). My guess is that Riseup is speaking of "capitalism" in the latter sense (and, if so, adding "unregulated" to their wording would clarify their position).
    - aneth 16y ago
Confusion 16y ago
Free reigning capitalism ends in a single party monopolizing essential supplies. Be the first to monopolize drinking water or oil production and most will do your bidding, lest their living standard plummets. You can leverage the power you have gained and obtain more monopolies. It will mean slavery and eugenic programs; the worst of all dystopias combined. Capitalism is amoral and must be kept in check by a government that looks after its people and upholds their moral standards. Otherwise, it ends in what is essentially a monarchy, but worse, because driven only to acquire more capital, with no regards for any morals at all.
- aneth 16y ago
  Yes, regulation and anti-monopoly laws are essential to capitalism. However being in favor of sensible regulation is utterly different from advocating the abolition of capitalism.

by aneth 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jhancock 16y ago

I'm with you if you simply take the 'ism' off capital. The ism part implies or at least condones extremism. Capital is a fine tool; one which can and is being abused. A little moderation goes a long way.

Qz 16y ago

The single greatest tool for raising living standards is human ingenuity, which has been around for thousands upon thousands of years longer than capitalism has been around. Capitalism has its pros, but it also has substantial cons, and it's dangerous to go around blindly proclaiming capitalism as the solution to the world's woes.

aneth 16y ago
At it's core, capitalism is an incentive system to innovate and distribute innovation. Human ingenuity is not sufficient in-and-of itself. Without being rewarded for giving your innovations to others, inventions are less likely to arise or be widely adopted.

jscn 16y ago

"Free people create free markets. Free markets do not necessarily create free people.” - Gupta’s Libertarian Observation

mcantelon 16y ago

I think it depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. Capitalism in a truly free market, in which all players are equal, is one thing, but crony capitalism, in which oligarchs use the state to keep the game rigged in their favor, is not conducive to innovation. Capitalism without oligarchy seems to me as much of a fantasy as communism without an oppressive state.

aneth 16y ago
That's corruption, not capitalism. And corruption is far worse in non-capitalist states, although the spoils are much smaller in magnitude. And I'm not opposed to regulation or in favor of pure laissez faire markets. I would add an important point though. In China, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 30 years, a modern miracle, simply by introducing well regulated capitalism to the economy. This despite the fact that billions are siphoned off through corruption and "crony capitalism." Many will look at this and rightly point out how unfair and unjust this is, however most Chinese would rather have a few, even many, rich corrupt official than the old state run distribution system, because now is overwhelmingly better for most Chinese than then. The overall effect is enormously positive, and nitpicking corruption that falls through the cracks is misguided. Corruption unjustly gives some more wealth than they deserve in every country - capitalism just means the pie is bigger.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  True... and as China is lifted out of poverty, the US standard of living is decreasing because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without (enabled by a lack of regulation which is, in turn, a result of corruption). It seems that in speaking of "capitalism", some are speaking of capitalism as a distribution system (which is entirely sensible) and some are speaking of Capitalism as a philosophy (which, more or less, idealizes the law of the jungle). My guess is that Riseup is speaking of "capitalism" in the latter sense (and, if so, adding "unregulated" to their wording would clarify their position).
  - aneth 16y ago

Confusion 16y ago

Free reigning capitalism ends in a single party monopolizing essential supplies. Be the first to monopolize drinking water or oil production and most will do your bidding, lest their living standard plummets. You can leverage the power you have gained and obtain more monopolies. It will mean slavery and eugenic programs; the worst of all dystopias combined. Capitalism is amoral and must be kept in check by a government that looks after its people and upholds their moral standards. Otherwise, it ends in what is essentially a monarchy, but worse, because driven only to acquire more capital, with no regards for any morals at all.

aneth 16y ago
Yes, regulation and anti-monopoly laws are essential to capitalism. However being in favor of sensible regulation is utterly different from advocating the abolition of capitalism.