7 ms·

I don’t understand framing the evils of the modern world as “capitalism” when every other economic system exhibits the same evils. Like what’s the proposed alte

I don’t understand framing the evils of the modern world as “capitalism” when every other economic system exhibits the same evils. Like what’s the proposed alternative? Communism? A fascist command economy? Every alternative is measurably worse on even this metric.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
The framing of "capitalism" says more about the person framing it that way than the framing itself. You'll never get an answer to your question because there isn't one. Some people are unhappy that we live in an unjust world in a cold, uncaring universe. Since those things are immutable, they will therefore always be unhappy.
jmyeet 4y ago
The point here is that the US government in particular works at the behest of the capital-owning class and this is not a partisan issue, meaning there is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Paying outrageous amounts for healthcare is to protect profits. The ultra-wealthy paying very little in tax is protecting the capital-owning class. We topple and isolate governments that push back against economic colonialism (eg Venezuela threatened to nationalize oil producers and oh look, a coup). We are raising interest rates supposedly to fight inflation but really to create unemployment and suppress wages. Why? Wages come at the expense of profits. The recently averted rail strike would've cost 3.5% of profits (not revenue) to provide 125,000 essential rail workers with paid sick leave. Look at the case of Steven Donziger [1] where Chevron shopped for a sympathetic judge that allowed an oil law firm to criminally prosecute and detain someone for years over a misdemeanour to daring to organize a $9.5 billion judgement against Chevron in a completely different country (ie Ecuador). This began under the last administration and the current administration has declined to intervene (which they could) and dismiss the case. Why is it that neither party wants to stand in the way of Chevron being essentially deputized to criminally prosecute people? Even war can be viewed through the lens of protecting profits. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost an insane amount of money but they generated a massive amount of profits for a whole host of companies. Even the very justifiable material aid we have been giving and continue to give to Ukraine is a huge gain for the military industrial complex who sells those weapons (and, as an aside, the amount of Ukraine aid is eerily similar to the spending that ended by withdrawing from Afghanistan). Prisons? Cheap labor (eg Angola State Penintentiary in Louisiana [2]). Restrictive immigration? Also cheap labor. Chicken factories and farms rely on undocumented migrants. If they complain you call ICE on them, pay a small fine, rinse and repeat. Why? Profits. My point is that climate change is no different. If you attempt to fight the system, you're going to lose because profits (particularly short term profits) win. The only path forward is an economic one. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/27/deconstructed-steven-donziger-chevron-ecuador/ https://theintercept.com/2022/04/27/deconstructed-steven-don... [2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404305/angola-prison-documentary/ https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404305/angola-prison...
danhor 4y ago
Specifically in regards to climate change, "pure" communism or fascism would probably be less bad, due to their economic failures and thus decreased energy (fossil fuel) usage.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  Ah yes, pure communism... Where you "save the planet," but starve 250,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 people to death.
  - danhor 4y ago
    Not a feature unique to "pure" communism, but sure. It reduces emissions, although I wouldn't want to live there (nor would almost anyone else). Looking at other possibilities it might not the best course of action.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

The framing of "capitalism" says more about the person framing it that way than the framing itself. You'll never get an answer to your question because there isn't one. Some people are unhappy that we live in an unjust world in a cold, uncaring universe. Since those things are immutable, they will therefore always be unhappy.

jmyeet 4y ago

The point here is that the US government in particular works at the behest of the capital-owning class and this is not a partisan issue, meaning there is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Paying outrageous amounts for healthcare is to protect profits. The ultra-wealthy paying very little in tax is protecting the capital-owning class. We topple and isolate governments that push back against economic colonialism (eg Venezuela threatened to nationalize oil producers and oh look, a coup). We are raising interest rates supposedly to fight inflation but really to create unemployment and suppress wages. Why? Wages come at the expense of profits. The recently averted rail strike would've cost 3.5% of profits (not revenue) to provide 125,000 essential rail workers with paid sick leave. Look at the case of Steven Donziger [1] where Chevron shopped for a sympathetic judge that allowed an oil law firm to criminally prosecute and detain someone for years over a misdemeanour to daring to organize a $9.5 billion judgement against Chevron in a completely different country (ie Ecuador). This began under the last administration and the current administration has declined to intervene (which they could) and dismiss the case. Why is it that neither party wants to stand in the way of Chevron being essentially deputized to criminally prosecute people? Even war can be viewed through the lens of protecting profits. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost an insane amount of money but they generated a massive amount of profits for a whole host of companies. Even the very justifiable material aid we have been giving and continue to give to Ukraine is a huge gain for the military industrial complex who sells those weapons (and, as an aside, the amount of Ukraine aid is eerily similar to the spending that ended by withdrawing from Afghanistan). Prisons? Cheap labor (eg Angola State Penintentiary in Louisiana [2]). Restrictive immigration? Also cheap labor. Chicken factories and farms rely on undocumented migrants. If they complain you call ICE on them, pay a small fine, rinse and repeat. Why? Profits. My point is that climate change is no different. If you attempt to fight the system, you're going to lose because profits (particularly short term profits) win. The only path forward is an economic one. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/27/deconstructed-steven-donziger-chevron-ecuador/ https://theintercept.com/2022/04/27/deconstructed-steven-don... [2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404305/angola-prison-documentary/ https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404305/angola-prison...

danhor 4y ago

Specifically in regards to climate change, "pure" communism or fascism would probably be less bad, due to their economic failures and thus decreased energy (fossil fuel) usage.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Ah yes, pure communism... Where you "save the planet," but starve 250,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 people to death.
- danhor 4y ago
  Not a feature unique to "pure" communism, but sure. It reduces emissions, although I wouldn't want to live there (nor would almost anyone else). Looking at other possibilities it might not the best course of action.