7 ms·

integrity in capitalism only exists if some soverreign entity enforces or if it's the more profitable path (e.g. to avoid PR scandals)

by aulin 4y ago

the_third_wave 4y ago
"in capitalism"... What about integrity in socialism, communism, fascism, confusianism, feodalism and all the others? In other words drop the silly "in capitalism", it is as vapid as the old-style "in Soviet Russia" reversals.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  As a person who lived in both I can tell you in communism it's far worse, at least as far as personal integrity is concerned. In capitalism, maximum I can lose for speaking up is my job. In communism, as in all authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, it was - and still is - normal for people to lose their freedom or even life. So as much as I hate corporate bullshit, their power grab, lobbying politicians etc., I would still prefer to live in a "capitalist" rather than a "communist" country.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Communism and authoritarian is the key. It's not the economic system that's the problem.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      Tell me then, how do you enforce the essence of a communist economic system, this being communal ownership of the means of production, without an authority to tell Mr. Smartpants who just invented a better mousetrap that he has to give it to the commune instead of producing it himself? Nope, Communism is more than just an economic system. It is an ideology which strives to create a "better man" who can create a "better society" where human "vices" like greed and avarice no longer play a role. In this it closely resembles religious orders which strive to create the same through other means. Capitalism is 'just an economic system' which can be implemented in many ways ranging from laissez-faire libertarian-style capitalism to state capitalism as practised in China. It does not come with the large ideological baggage Communism carries since it doesn't need to - leave people to their own devices and they'll end up doing something resembling a form of capitalism at a large scale while practising something resembling communism at a small - family and neighbourhood - scale. This model works fine since there is no ideological drive to force out the small-scale 'communism' in families and neighbourhoods whereas a communist society needs to do away with the large-scale capitalism. Communism and authoritarianism are indelibly linked.
  - Karellen 4y ago
    > In communism, as in all authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, WTF? Communism is an economic model, not a leadership selection model. Communism is diametrically opposed to capitalism, not to democracy. (It always baffles me when a communist authoritarian dictatorship enriches wealthy plutocrats while the workers starve, it's always the communism part that gets blamed, never the authoritarian dictatorship. But when a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship enriches wealthy plutocrats while the workers starve, it's never the capitalism that gets blamed. No, then it's the authoritarian dictatorship that's the problem. How about, just maybe, it's dictators and wealthy plutocrats that are the biggest problem for the working class?)
    - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
      Believe me, I fully see your point. However, in the biggest examples we've seen so far, like the communist Russia and China, the ideals of equality were trampled almost as quickly as they were declared. And their biggest differentiator, as declared by them, was that they were communist. You don't really get the same level of authoritarian in the so called capitalism or "modern democracy" because in order for this model to thrive, you need to have sound relations with other democratic/"capitalistic" countries and they won't trade with you if you don't obey certain standards. A good example is what is happening in Hungary and Poland now: after the right took over they decided to make a more or less gradual switch to an authoritarian regime, taking over the courts, media etc. But their EU partners said, if you follow this road, you will not get money form the EU anymore. So apart the war in Ukraine, this is the biggest discussion in the EU now.
      - Karellen 4y ago
        > You don't really get the same level of authoritarian in the so called capitalism or "modern democracy" Cambodia springs to mind. Pretty sure I could find a few countries in Africa that fit the bill too.
        the_third_wave 4y ago
        Cambodia is a good example. Under the Communist regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge the country was turned into the killing fields. Their four-year rule (1975-1979) decimated Cambodia, created widespread human suffering and as many as 2.2 million deaths [1]. I guess this is not the part of Cambodian history you meant but it does show what a Communist regime is capable of given free reign. [1] https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cambodia-under-pol-pot/ https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cambodia-under-pol-pot/
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > In capitalism, maximum I can lose for speaking up is my job In capitalism, the repression is outsourced to 'the market'. Try openly declaring that you are a Marxist-Leninist and find out how fast you will lose your livelihood, including those jobs that you thought to have existed 'out there'. All is ok as long as you dont threaten the system. If all that you have is mild objections to this specific politician or that specific policy, you wont have any problems. That is the same with every other system. The moment you become a threat to the system by speaking up against 'the wrong thing', then you'll see how efficient the repression is.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > as vapid as the old-style "in Soviet Russia" reversals. The genre never made any sense, but the original joke was quite good. In Soviet Russia, television watch you!
  - type0 4y ago
    > In Soviet Russia, television watch you! You joke, but some smart TVs with cameras and microphone do indeed that if they have certain malware. This applies even more widely for baby monitors and some other "smart tech for home". What was once a wet dream of Soviet leaders is a reality in our capitalist world, just wait untill it will be mandated by the government that you can't cover the camera with tape and rip out the mic. "You will own nothing and will be happy". https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-smart-tvs-from-snooping-on-you https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-smart-tvs-from-snoo...
- aulin 4y ago
  Sorry, I'm late. It was not a criticism of capitalism and it's way different than the other authoritarisms you cite. The point here is that market forces have no integrity, they seek maximum profit. The only way to limit this is to impose some regulation with a sovereign entity that's not driven by profit alone.

integrity in capitalism only exists if some soverreign entity enforces or if it's the more profitable path (e.g. to avoid PR scandals)

by aulin 4y ago

integrity in capitalism only exists if some soverreign entity enforces or if it's the more profitable path (e.g. to avoid PR scandals)

the_third_wave 4y ago

"in capitalism"... What about integrity in socialism, communism, fascism, confusianism, feodalism and all the others? In other words drop the silly "in capitalism", it is as vapid as the old-style "in Soviet Russia" reversals.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
As a person who lived in both I can tell you in communism it's far worse, at least as far as personal integrity is concerned. In capitalism, maximum I can lose for speaking up is my job. In communism, as in all authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, it was - and still is - normal for people to lose their freedom or even life. So as much as I hate corporate bullshit, their power grab, lobbying politicians etc., I would still prefer to live in a "capitalist" rather than a "communist" country.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Communism and authoritarian is the key. It's not the economic system that's the problem.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    Tell me then, how do you enforce the essence of a communist economic system, this being communal ownership of the means of production, without an authority to tell Mr. Smartpants who just invented a better mousetrap that he has to give it to the commune instead of producing it himself? Nope, Communism is more than just an economic system. It is an ideology which strives to create a "better man" who can create a "better society" where human "vices" like greed and avarice no longer play a role. In this it closely resembles religious orders which strive to create the same through other means. Capitalism is 'just an economic system' which can be implemented in many ways ranging from laissez-faire libertarian-style capitalism to state capitalism as practised in China. It does not come with the large ideological baggage Communism carries since it doesn't need to - leave people to their own devices and they'll end up doing something resembling a form of capitalism at a large scale while practising something resembling communism at a small - family and neighbourhood - scale. This model works fine since there is no ideological drive to force out the small-scale 'communism' in families and neighbourhoods whereas a communist society needs to do away with the large-scale capitalism. Communism and authoritarianism are indelibly linked.
- Karellen 4y ago
  > In communism, as in all authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, WTF? Communism is an economic model, not a leadership selection model. Communism is diametrically opposed to capitalism, not to democracy. (It always baffles me when a communist authoritarian dictatorship enriches wealthy plutocrats while the workers starve, it's always the communism part that gets blamed, never the authoritarian dictatorship. But when a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship enriches wealthy plutocrats while the workers starve, it's never the capitalism that gets blamed. No, then it's the authoritarian dictatorship that's the problem. How about, just maybe, it's dictators and wealthy plutocrats that are the biggest problem for the working class?)
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    Believe me, I fully see your point. However, in the biggest examples we've seen so far, like the communist Russia and China, the ideals of equality were trampled almost as quickly as they were declared. And their biggest differentiator, as declared by them, was that they were communist. You don't really get the same level of authoritarian in the so called capitalism or "modern democracy" because in order for this model to thrive, you need to have sound relations with other democratic/"capitalistic" countries and they won't trade with you if you don't obey certain standards. A good example is what is happening in Hungary and Poland now: after the right took over they decided to make a more or less gradual switch to an authoritarian regime, taking over the courts, media etc. But their EU partners said, if you follow this road, you will not get money form the EU anymore. So apart the war in Ukraine, this is the biggest discussion in the EU now.
    - Karellen 4y ago
      > You don't really get the same level of authoritarian in the so called capitalism or "modern democracy" Cambodia springs to mind. Pretty sure I could find a few countries in Africa that fit the bill too.
      - the_third_wave 4y ago
        Cambodia is a good example. Under the Communist regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge the country was turned into the killing fields. Their four-year rule (1975-1979) decimated Cambodia, created widespread human suffering and as many as 2.2 million deaths [1]. I guess this is not the part of Cambodian history you meant but it does show what a Communist regime is capable of given free reign. [1] https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cambodia-under-pol-pot/ https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cambodia-under-pol-pot/
- unity1001 4y ago
  > In capitalism, maximum I can lose for speaking up is my job In capitalism, the repression is outsourced to 'the market'. Try openly declaring that you are a Marxist-Leninist and find out how fast you will lose your livelihood, including those jobs that you thought to have existed 'out there'. All is ok as long as you dont threaten the system. If all that you have is mild objections to this specific politician or that specific policy, you wont have any problems. That is the same with every other system. The moment you become a threat to the system by speaking up against 'the wrong thing', then you'll see how efficient the repression is.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> as vapid as the old-style "in Soviet Russia" reversals. The genre never made any sense, but the original joke was quite good. In Soviet Russia, television watch you!
- type0 4y ago
  > In Soviet Russia, television watch you! You joke, but some smart TVs with cameras and microphone do indeed that if they have certain malware. This applies even more widely for baby monitors and some other "smart tech for home". What was once a wet dream of Soviet leaders is a reality in our capitalist world, just wait untill it will be mandated by the government that you can't cover the camera with tape and rip out the mic. "You will own nothing and will be happy". https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-smart-tvs-from-snooping-on-you https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-smart-tvs-from-snoo...
aulin 4y ago
Sorry, I'm late. It was not a criticism of capitalism and it's way different than the other authoritarisms you cite. The point here is that market forces have no integrity, they seek maximum profit. The only way to limit this is to impose some regulation with a sovereign entity that's not driven by profit alone.