3 ms·

I resonate with this alot. I too, am a centrist. We can have capitalism without the cruelty (and the tragedy of commons and external costs on the environment)

I resonate with this alot. I too, am a centrist. We can have capitalism without the cruelty (and the tragedy of commons and external costs on the environment) where markets exist but have limits that don't allow it to lead into exploitation, that is the idea anyway. Here in the USA, there seems to be a big red flag on the idea of implementing social good programs[0] like universal healthcare, UBI and many other programs. They're not panaceas, but they're a big net good increase on society at large. Funnily enough, once Americans have these programs and they manage to seed themselves in society, they fight like dogs to keep them. Look at the protests around Republicans trying to roll back major provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Their own base shut it down, because a sizable Republican voting block is lower middle class and receive more government assistance then you might get the impression of as an outsider. [0]: Often called social welfare, but the term welfare in US politics is heavily tainted. I didn't want to trigger preconceived notions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lasfter 3y ago
You cannot have capitalism without the bad stuff unless capital's interests are best served in abstaining from bad stuff. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to set up a system that aligns the world's interests with capital's, because our lawmakers are predominantly capitalists and act in their own best interests at the expense of everything else. When money is the name of the game in elections, the legislature, and even the justice system, how is it even theoretically possible to implement capitalism without the bad stuff? The best you can do is hope the capitalists are nice.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  Despite having capitalism, we still have many good social programs that help many people. There is lots of bad stuff too, but the social programs can (theoretically) minimize the negative impacts of capitalism. If everyone has access to food, shelter, transportation, health care, and mental health care (regardless of whether it's gourmet food or luxury shelter), people as a whole are going to be much better off than they currently are, and it will very much weaken the ability of capital to compel people to do things they'd rather not. I'd argue there would still be problems with such a system, but it's leagues better than what we have now.
  - lasfter 3y ago
    If everyone has access to food, shelter, transportation, and health care, in what ways would we even still have capitalism? Like, what happens to landlords? Will we fund this stuff with heavy taxation on the wealthy? Will defense budgets be cut? I obviously agree that social programs are necessary for a just and humane society. But I also think the opposition from military-industrial complex, energy lobbies, and rent-seekers of all stripes make it impossible to implement these programs effectively. Because at the end of the day the root of the problem is capitalism.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      If social programs don't provide luxuries, but just essentials, people are still going to want luxuries, and there can be markets around those. I'm not convinced that communism or even complete socialism are better than what I've described, which I think is somewhere between demsoc and socdem, but not entirely those things either. We haven't really seen socialism/communism without a high degree of authoritarianism, which I also don't really like, so I'm inclined to support working towards socialism democratically rather than trying to overthrow the government in a bloody revolution. I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital. An example would be high property taxes for people/businesses owning a house that isn't their primary residence, which would go to fund social housing.
      - lasfter 3y ago
        > We haven't really seen socialism/communism without a high degree of authoritarianism, which I also don't really like, so I'm inclined to support working towards socialism democratically rather than trying to overthrow the government in a bloody revolution. And we haven't had capitalism without rampant homelessness, corruption, systemic violence, exploitation of the global poor, and various other forms of avoidable misery. The status quo is bloody too, just not for people like me (and I assume like you). > I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital I want the same thing, but my understanding is that you can't get the state to align with workers against capital because capital will always outcompete workers at amassing resources simply through scale. One capitalist can extract surplus value from many many many workers at once, and use that value to buy more workers, to the ultimate end of buying the state through lobbying and funding campaigns. Is there some way we don't end up back where we began?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lasfter 3y ago

You cannot have capitalism without the bad stuff unless capital's interests are best served in abstaining from bad stuff. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to set up a system that aligns the world's interests with capital's, because our lawmakers are predominantly capitalists and act in their own best interests at the expense of everything else. When money is the name of the game in elections, the legislature, and even the justice system, how is it even theoretically possible to implement capitalism without the bad stuff? The best you can do is hope the capitalists are nice.

pcthrowaway 3y ago
Despite having capitalism, we still have many good social programs that help many people. There is lots of bad stuff too, but the social programs can (theoretically) minimize the negative impacts of capitalism. If everyone has access to food, shelter, transportation, health care, and mental health care (regardless of whether it's gourmet food or luxury shelter), people as a whole are going to be much better off than they currently are, and it will very much weaken the ability of capital to compel people to do things they'd rather not. I'd argue there would still be problems with such a system, but it's leagues better than what we have now.
- lasfter 3y ago
  If everyone has access to food, shelter, transportation, and health care, in what ways would we even still have capitalism? Like, what happens to landlords? Will we fund this stuff with heavy taxation on the wealthy? Will defense budgets be cut? I obviously agree that social programs are necessary for a just and humane society. But I also think the opposition from military-industrial complex, energy lobbies, and rent-seekers of all stripes make it impossible to implement these programs effectively. Because at the end of the day the root of the problem is capitalism.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    If social programs don't provide luxuries, but just essentials, people are still going to want luxuries, and there can be markets around those. I'm not convinced that communism or even complete socialism are better than what I've described, which I think is somewhere between demsoc and socdem, but not entirely those things either. We haven't really seen socialism/communism without a high degree of authoritarianism, which I also don't really like, so I'm inclined to support working towards socialism democratically rather than trying to overthrow the government in a bloody revolution. I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital. An example would be high property taxes for people/businesses owning a house that isn't their primary residence, which would go to fund social housing.
    - lasfter 3y ago
      > We haven't really seen socialism/communism without a high degree of authoritarianism, which I also don't really like, so I'm inclined to support working towards socialism democratically rather than trying to overthrow the government in a bloody revolution. And we haven't had capitalism without rampant homelessness, corruption, systemic violence, exploitation of the global poor, and various other forms of avoidable misery. The status quo is bloody too, just not for people like me (and I assume like you). > I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital I want the same thing, but my understanding is that you can't get the state to align with workers against capital because capital will always outcompete workers at amassing resources simply through scale. One capitalist can extract surplus value from many many many workers at once, and use that value to buy more workers, to the ultimate end of buying the state through lobbying and funding campaigns. Is there some way we don't end up back where we began?