5 ms·

Our history seems to celebrate all past conquests as great feats by super-human hero-like figures, when in reality they were sackers, enslavers, and robbers...

Our history seems to celebrate all past conquests as great feats by super-human hero-like figures, when in reality they were sackers, enslavers, and robbers... heck from the Egyptian Pyramids to Europe's castle's to Abu dhabi's big buildings. It seems all of them are tainted with being built with a slave workforce... Same goes for any multinational corporation exerting resources from their low-wage employees and the countries where they operate. Sad thing is we, as a society, will probably celebrate/admire those who extract more. Capitalism is a fucked up mindset, it has brought us to here, and that can be said to have some merits by itself, but I'm not sure it will get us much far ahead as it is...

xupybd 6y ago
What's the better alternative to capitalism?
- jahaja 6y ago
  Something that is better at solving inequality. Something that aims towards egalitarianism, not property ownership. Capitalism have had a couple of hundreds of years or so now, and it still haven't succeeded in this, even with all the technological progress since.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    Is egalitarianism and inequality the most desirable outcome of an economic system? I'd argue it's not. I'd argue prosperity is. That is to say if the poor get far richer than they were and that keeps happening I don't care if the rich get richer faster. Especially if true class mobility is present in the system. That way the poor are trading places with the rich.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are shared, so yes, 1890ths England was surely one of the most prosperous countries of the time, but at the same time children lived in Oliver Twist like misery. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails miserably at redistributing resources fairly.
      - xupybd 6y ago
        Capitalism doesn't aim to redistribute resources fairly. It aims to allocate them effectively. Those that find efficient means of production acquire more resources. This cause more effective use of resources available and thus more resources become available for everyone. Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than equality. Extreme inequality is bad
        jahaja 6y ago
        You're just parroting free market propaganda and still have the stomach to dismiss the author as an ideolog.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        xupybd 6y ago
        Ok so do you have a better system than capitalism? I'm saying that absolute wealth is more important than equality. Do you have a counter to that or a system that can promote prosperity and more even wealth distribution?
        jahaja 6y ago
        Yes, to extend democracy to the economic sphere.

xupybd 6y ago

What's the better alternative to capitalism?

jahaja 6y ago
Something that is better at solving inequality. Something that aims towards egalitarianism, not property ownership. Capitalism have had a couple of hundreds of years or so now, and it still haven't succeeded in this, even with all the technological progress since.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Is egalitarianism and inequality the most desirable outcome of an economic system? I'd argue it's not. I'd argue prosperity is. That is to say if the poor get far richer than they were and that keeps happening I don't care if the rich get richer faster. Especially if true class mobility is present in the system. That way the poor are trading places with the rich.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are shared, so yes, 1890ths England was surely one of the most prosperous countries of the time, but at the same time children lived in Oliver Twist like misery. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails miserably at redistributing resources fairly.
    - xupybd 6y ago
      Capitalism doesn't aim to redistribute resources fairly. It aims to allocate them effectively. Those that find efficient means of production acquire more resources. This cause more effective use of resources available and thus more resources become available for everyone. Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than equality. Extreme inequality is bad
      - jahaja 6y ago
        You're just parroting free market propaganda and still have the stomach to dismiss the author as an ideolog.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        xupybd 6y ago
        Ok so do you have a better system than capitalism? I'm saying that absolute wealth is more important than equality. Do you have a counter to that or a system that can promote prosperity and more even wealth distribution?
        jahaja 6y ago
        Yes, to extend democracy to the economic sphere.