4 ms·

I think it's because capitalism perverts everything into repeating the mantra "don't fuck with the money". You need to fix the economic system along with the g

I think it's because capitalism perverts everything into repeating the mantra "don't fuck with the money". You need to fix the economic system along with the government.

blitz_skull 3y ago
Why does capitalism have to be your scapegoat? Why not go to the root—the lust for power. In essence that’s what money is anyway, it’s just a means to an end. Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? If you can, then you’ve got a shot. Otherwise, you don’t.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  >Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? We could call it the New Soviet Man or something like that
gruez 3y ago
>I think it's because capitalism ... That's why communist countries are known for their carbon neutral economies, and being excellent stewards of the environment, right?
- ssabev 3y ago
  Yeah and human rights and happiness, etc, etc. Source: product of 2 former commie countries. The after effects probably take 50+ years to undo
- ElectricalUnion 3y ago
  No communist country exists, and most likely one will never exist. Calling countries "communist" is supposed to be a capitalist joke on communism being a unreacheable utopia.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Suppose thats true. Then what explains the behavior of "communist" (but not True Communist) countries? They're polluting just like capitalist countries. Are they just undercover capitalists?
    - ElectricalUnion 3y ago
      > Suppose thats true. A communist society would entail the absence of private property, social classes, money and the state. No stable, large scale "society without state" exists in the modern world.
    - ansmithz42 3y ago
      What explains the "communist" countries behaviour is "Animal Farm". The "communist" countries are just a variant of Monarchies. They have replaced some of the birth-rite of monarchies but it is still the same with all the behind the scenes power plays and purges.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Well then a planned command-style economy instead of a free market using Marxism as it's motivating principle. I'm guessing most of the western critics of capitalism aren't tankies, so they probably have in mind some sort of democratic ownership of production where people choose degrowth over profit. To the extent that's doable at the scale of nations is unproven. Potential problem is someone like Stalin or Mao will always subvert the movement for their own personal power.
defrost 3y ago
I'd remark that it has less to do with capitalism and a great deal more to do with a lack of strong guard rails separating policy making (from elected offials) from undue influence (lobbyists and money). Have distinct silos for military, civil service, law (trials, not police or writing), etc. with harsh penalties for stepping out of line good rewards for duty are things that I rate highly in a government system. The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials. That was at least a two guard rail jumping systemic failure (IMHO).
- gruez 3y ago
  >The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials. 1. "legalise directly bribing officials" is a gross misrepresentation of Citizens United v. FEC. As per the wikipedia article, the ruling "prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations"[1]. In other words, it means the government can't prevent corporations from donating to groups that run political ads. "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that. 2. at the risk of starting another flame war, the "turn for the worse" happened decades before with roe v. wade, when they ruled that abortion was under the "right to privacy". Regardless of whether you think women should be allowed the right to abortion, justifying it under the 14th amendment is much more egregious than the supreme court ruling that the government can't restrict the speech of groups of people (ie. corporations). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - defrost 3y ago
    The case can be made, and there is no shortage of articles from the US that purport to make that case, it's a subject still hotly contested. Also, I carefully wrote a turn for the worse as there has been many twists and turns on the path between past and present. I admire your gumption in insisting upon the turn for the worse as if there has been only one and that Roe V. Wade was that moment. Popular opinion by the numbers within the USofA appears to disagree with your assessment.

I think it's because capitalism perverts everything into repeating the mantra "don't fuck with the money". You need to fix the economic system along with the government.

blitz_skull 3y ago

Why does capitalism have to be your scapegoat? Why not go to the root—the lust for power. In essence that’s what money is anyway, it’s just a means to an end. Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? If you can, then you’ve got a shot. Otherwise, you don’t.

HideousKojima 3y ago
>Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? We could call it the New Soviet Man or something like that

gruez 3y ago

>I think it's because capitalism ... That's why communist countries are known for their carbon neutral economies, and being excellent stewards of the environment, right?

ssabev 3y ago
Yeah and human rights and happiness, etc, etc. Source: product of 2 former commie countries. The after effects probably take 50+ years to undo
ElectricalUnion 3y ago
No communist country exists, and most likely one will never exist. Calling countries "communist" is supposed to be a capitalist joke on communism being a unreacheable utopia.
- gruez 3y ago
  Suppose thats true. Then what explains the behavior of "communist" (but not True Communist) countries? They're polluting just like capitalist countries. Are they just undercover capitalists?
  - ElectricalUnion 3y ago
    > Suppose thats true. A communist society would entail the absence of private property, social classes, money and the state. No stable, large scale "society without state" exists in the modern world.
  - ansmithz42 3y ago
    What explains the "communist" countries behaviour is "Animal Farm". The "communist" countries are just a variant of Monarchies. They have replaced some of the birth-rite of monarchies but it is still the same with all the behind the scenes power plays and purges.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Well then a planned command-style economy instead of a free market using Marxism as it's motivating principle. I'm guessing most of the western critics of capitalism aren't tankies, so they probably have in mind some sort of democratic ownership of production where people choose degrowth over profit. To the extent that's doable at the scale of nations is unproven. Potential problem is someone like Stalin or Mao will always subvert the movement for their own personal power.

defrost 3y ago

I'd remark that it has less to do with capitalism and a great deal more to do with a lack of strong guard rails separating policy making (from elected offials) from undue influence (lobbyists and money). Have distinct silos for military, civil service, law (trials, not police or writing), etc. with harsh penalties for stepping out of line good rewards for duty are things that I rate highly in a government system. The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials. That was at least a two guard rail jumping systemic failure (IMHO).

gruez 3y ago
>The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials. 1. "legalise directly bribing officials" is a gross misrepresentation of Citizens United v. FEC. As per the wikipedia article, the ruling "prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations"[1]. In other words, it means the government can't prevent corporations from donating to groups that run political ads. "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that. 2. at the risk of starting another flame war, the "turn for the worse" happened decades before with roe v. wade, when they ruled that abortion was under the "right to privacy". Regardless of whether you think women should be allowed the right to abortion, justifying it under the 14th amendment is much more egregious than the supreme court ruling that the government can't restrict the speech of groups of people (ie. corporations). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- defrost 3y ago
  The case can be made, and there is no shortage of articles from the US that purport to make that case, it's a subject still hotly contested. Also, I carefully wrote a turn for the worse as there has been many twists and turns on the path between past and present. I admire your gumption in insisting upon the turn for the worse as if there has been only one and that Roe V. Wade was that moment. Popular opinion by the numbers within the USofA appears to disagree with your assessment.