3 ms·

While I agree with the Soviet part (or any political system for that matter) I doubt the pro capitalist generalization would stand to scrutiny: > At least in c

While I agree with the Soviet part (or any political system for that matter) I doubt the pro capitalist generalization would stand to scrutiny: > At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. One could easily find examples that counter these points. I doubt pyramid schemes (think Madoff's schemes) or crypto scams are the only counter-examples possible. These more often than not come from an imbalance of information. People (or the market) could make better decisions with all information being accessible at the time of the decision. But all too often one side has more information than the other. Giving this side an edge. > In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition. In capitalism it is basically the same as long as you can get away with it. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but without regulation capitalism is in now way better than other systems. Their excesses would all need to be reigned in. Because no unregulated system would be acting in the common good. The system may be organized in a way to slightly enable more or less perdonsl freedom. Or more or less societal freedom. But in the end - for average Joe - uncontrolled capitalism boils down to the working and living conditions of the early industrialisation or (in case of socialism) towards the living and working conditions of late soviet times.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
It can be trivially shown to be not true by considering that some people are a toxic drain on a company, costing them immense amounts of money, torpedoing productivity, ruining morale and yet continue to draw a salary for years and years.
drekipus 5y ago
Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws, morals, ethics, etc) Pyramid schemes steal a great amount of wealth, and should be regulated. Regulated capitalism is the good thing. The thing is, pyramid schemes aren't run by the state (or shouldn't be) and you don't have a gun to your head forcing you to participate. I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. The "shouldn't" isn't very relevant here though. People shouldn't do that under a communist system either, and yet it happens under both. > I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend. I wish it was a strawman, unfortunately libertarians who promote this kind of capitalism (which to be clear isn't all libertarians) are a prominent political group whose members include many elected officials!
  - seibelj 5y ago
    In capitalism the default is freedom and decentralization. So people can choose to act immorally and that’s a trade off we accept as a price of freedom. We set up a criminal justice system to fix that bug and set monetary incentives in a way that encourages productive economic activity over exploitive. Finding some bad actors does not disregard the entire system, especially not one that was ultimately convicted and died in prison.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I argue there is no need for regulation and we just need pure capitalism. Without a government, companies made of people with guns would emerge punishing scammers and criminals in general, advising companies and reputation systems would emerge protecting people from scams. Due to the nature of entrepreneurship, all these companies could be held in check by competitors. Without regulation slowing down new competitors, if a cartel emerges, there would be a great incentive for a better alternative coming up and making money. You may argue the systems of companies providing these services would make a sort of government - and you would be right. It would just be more decentralised and therefore there would be less space for corruption. You also wouldn't force people to pay you a part of their profit or they go to jail and you wouldn't force people to avoid certain substances or limit what activities thay may be doing. You can at best say: "If you don't pay a protecion agency, you won't have protection against criminals / foreign invaders", "You may take this drug but this recommendation company suggest it's bad for you". I'd rather live in a free society, a society where I'm free to even damage myself, than in the regulated prison we live in today.
leetcrew 5y ago
> One could easily find examples that counter these points. I doubt pyramid schemes (think Madoff's schemes) or crypto scams are the only counter-examples possible. it would be more convincing if you could come up with counterexamples that aren't illegal.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

It can be trivially shown to be not true by considering that some people are a toxic drain on a company, costing them immense amounts of money, torpedoing productivity, ruining morale and yet continue to draw a salary for years and years.

drekipus 5y ago

Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws, morals, ethics, etc) Pyramid schemes steal a great amount of wealth, and should be regulated. Regulated capitalism is the good thing. The thing is, pyramid schemes aren't run by the state (or shouldn't be) and you don't have a gun to your head forcing you to participate. I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend.

nicoburns 5y ago
> Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. The "shouldn't" isn't very relevant here though. People shouldn't do that under a communist system either, and yet it happens under both. > I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend. I wish it was a strawman, unfortunately libertarians who promote this kind of capitalism (which to be clear isn't all libertarians) are a prominent political group whose members include many elected officials!
- seibelj 5y ago
  In capitalism the default is freedom and decentralization. So people can choose to act immorally and that’s a trade off we accept as a price of freedom. We set up a criminal justice system to fix that bug and set monetary incentives in a way that encourages productive economic activity over exploitive. Finding some bad actors does not disregard the entire system, especially not one that was ultimately convicted and died in prison.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I argue there is no need for regulation and we just need pure capitalism. Without a government, companies made of people with guns would emerge punishing scammers and criminals in general, advising companies and reputation systems would emerge protecting people from scams. Due to the nature of entrepreneurship, all these companies could be held in check by competitors. Without regulation slowing down new competitors, if a cartel emerges, there would be a great incentive for a better alternative coming up and making money. You may argue the systems of companies providing these services would make a sort of government - and you would be right. It would just be more decentralised and therefore there would be less space for corruption. You also wouldn't force people to pay you a part of their profit or they go to jail and you wouldn't force people to avoid certain substances or limit what activities thay may be doing. You can at best say: "If you don't pay a protecion agency, you won't have protection against criminals / foreign invaders", "You may take this drug but this recommendation company suggest it's bad for you". I'd rather live in a free society, a society where I'm free to even damage myself, than in the regulated prison we live in today.

leetcrew 5y ago

> One could easily find examples that counter these points. I doubt pyramid schemes (think Madoff's schemes) or crypto scams are the only counter-examples possible. it would be more convincing if you could come up with counterexamples that aren't illegal.