3 ms·

> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a

by ta8645 3y ago

> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed, but that will never change no matter what system you dream up. And while capitalism isn't draped in utpoian idealism, it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
It's not about lofty idealism. It's about central goals. Sometimes, even oftentimes, goals are failed to be met. But, when it comes time to sacrifice something, it's invariable that a side effect will be cut rather than the central goal. Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money". Capitalism does not have meeting basic human needs as a core goal. Capitalism's distribution of money to labor is a side effect, not a goal. It has the freedom of capital to amass capital as a core goal. Thus, if something needs to go, it's not going to be capital's ability to amass more capital. As automation comes for more and more jobs, the demand for labor in general will fall. Capitalism, even in its most idealistic "a rising tide lifts all ships" form, does not care about those it doesn't need. If your preferred answer to "what do we do when human labor is no longer necessary" isn't "extinction", you can't rely on Capitalism as an ideology.
- jmye 3y ago
  > The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money". Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? This is a reductive and ridiculous take. The real world isn’t Soc101 or a poor reading of Marx, nor is it black and white.
  - thiagoharry 3y ago
    > Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small businesses or non-profit organizations indeed may have concerns other than profit. But good luck convincing shareholders in a big company that they should take the less profitable path, especially if there is competition with other companies.
    - jmye 3y ago
      Why is a non-profit or small business not capitalist? I feel like the latter, especially, is a weird stretch. Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue. Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?
      - Gibbon1 3y ago
        Most small businesses aren't really about capital investment and are more about cash flow.
  - kubanczyk 3y ago
    The irony is the best side of HN. It seems you ignored the parent's main argument, but you've found their admittedly weakest paragraph. "This is a reductive and ridiculous take" is the literal phrase that you've used at that point. > Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that are the source of that law.
    - 3y ago
skulk 3y ago
I don't think you're engaging with the GP's ideas in good faith. Yes, capitalism lifts people out of poverty at an unimaginable scale, but the GP's contention is that this is only _for the moment_. According to the GP, the end state of capitalism is a sudden, drastic drop in the labor class's material conditions (which probably looks a lot like societal collapse). Your contention that "But it's good now!" is exactly the kind of logic that GP is railing against.
pixl97 3y ago
> it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living. This is what happens when you smoke too much of your own propaganda. America is very much a mixed economy, and we're the so called 'leader' of the capitalistic world. If the US had been allowed to be an unchallenged capitalistic country then we'd look very much like Russia today (which is not communistic in any way), a corrupt shithole. A huge part of our success was the labor movements of the mid 1800s in which a fair number of people died in. Then later in the 1930s after unchecked capitalism brought about a horrific crash that required a massive amount of socialistic policies to bring us back from the brink and get the economy working. The reality of these situations is far more complex than the red white and blue cheerleading we're taught in school.

by ta8645 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

It's not about lofty idealism. It's about central goals. Sometimes, even oftentimes, goals are failed to be met. But, when it comes time to sacrifice something, it's invariable that a side effect will be cut rather than the central goal. Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money". Capitalism does not have meeting basic human needs as a core goal. Capitalism's distribution of money to labor is a side effect, not a goal. It has the freedom of capital to amass capital as a core goal. Thus, if something needs to go, it's not going to be capital's ability to amass more capital. As automation comes for more and more jobs, the demand for labor in general will fall. Capitalism, even in its most idealistic "a rising tide lifts all ships" form, does not care about those it doesn't need. If your preferred answer to "what do we do when human labor is no longer necessary" isn't "extinction", you can't rely on Capitalism as an ideology.

jmye 3y ago
> The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money". Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? This is a reductive and ridiculous take. The real world isn’t Soc101 or a poor reading of Marx, nor is it black and white.
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  > Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small businesses or non-profit organizations indeed may have concerns other than profit. But good luck convincing shareholders in a big company that they should take the less profitable path, especially if there is competition with other companies.
  - jmye 3y ago
    Why is a non-profit or small business not capitalist? I feel like the latter, especially, is a weird stretch. Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue. Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?
    - Gibbon1 3y ago
      Most small businesses aren't really about capital investment and are more about cash flow.
- kubanczyk 3y ago
  The irony is the best side of HN. It seems you ignored the parent's main argument, but you've found their admittedly weakest paragraph. "This is a reductive and ridiculous take" is the literal phrase that you've used at that point. > Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that are the source of that law.
  - 3y ago

skulk 3y ago

I don't think you're engaging with the GP's ideas in good faith. Yes, capitalism lifts people out of poverty at an unimaginable scale, but the GP's contention is that this is only _for the moment_. According to the GP, the end state of capitalism is a sudden, drastic drop in the labor class's material conditions (which probably looks a lot like societal collapse). Your contention that "But it's good now!" is exactly the kind of logic that GP is railing against.

pixl97 3y ago

> it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living. This is what happens when you smoke too much of your own propaganda. America is very much a mixed economy, and we're the so called 'leader' of the capitalistic world. If the US had been allowed to be an unchallenged capitalistic country then we'd look very much like Russia today (which is not communistic in any way), a corrupt shithole. A huge part of our success was the labor movements of the mid 1800s in which a fair number of people died in. Then later in the 1930s after unchecked capitalism brought about a horrific crash that required a massive amount of socialistic policies to bring us back from the brink and get the economy working. The reality of these situations is far more complex than the red white and blue cheerleading we're taught in school.