4 ms·

This isn't the difference between a small town and city, it's the inevitable result of late stage capitalism. In cities it's still possible to go to small store

This isn't the difference between a small town and city, it's the inevitable result of late stage capitalism. In cities it's still possible to go to small stores and create connection with your local grocer, butcher, etc. I purposefully do it, but I have to seek out the places it's still possible, they're dwindling every year. The problem is capitalism wants to consolidate and treat people as fungible to extract more value, which has the side effect of preventing the formation of social bonds.

parineum 2y ago
Capitalism isn't a person, it doesn't want things. The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.
- theossuary 2y ago
  No, the issue is pedantic people like you who can't understand that "want" is a simple way of saying that a system is biased towards certain outcomes. Capitalism is not an expression of human nature, it's a single possible pareto equilibrium. To say otherwise ignores huge swaths of humans history, and many modern nations which have achieved equilibrium in different ways.
  - parineum 2y ago
    Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous. No nation has ever achieved equilibrium but we are enjoying the most peaceful times in history during a time after the previous wave of capitalism-alternatives failed miserably or acquiesced. Just about every measure of human flourishing is in the rise, globally.
    - arresin 2y ago
      And now the pitch.
      - 7thaccount 2y ago
        They're not wrong. Late stage capitalism sucks, but the alternative systems out there seem to lead to mass starvation or total collapse. People have been lifted out of poverty worldwide as well. Some kind of balance seems necessary.
        harimau777 2y ago
        The welfare states of Western Europe and the Nordic countries seem much better than America's system of late stage capitalism and they have not lead to mass starvation or total collapse. Likewise, America's economy seemed to be much more healthy when it had a more active/successful labor movement.
        Der_Einzige 2y ago
        Those welfare states only exist as such because the US subsidizes their drug discovery, R&D, defense, spooks, and related. Without the US taking one for the team, Europe could not maintain its social democracies or its welfare states.
        harimau777 2y ago
        Then I think that the US should stop taking one for the team and we can work from there.
        7thaccount 2y ago
        I'm not sure if the current success of Norway can be replicated everywhere. It has a small population living off a state oil fund that has something like $300k/person.
    - harimau777 2y ago
  - stoperaticless 2y ago
    I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”. > it's a single possible pareto equilibrium I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism > Capitalism is not an expression of human nature Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”). Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.
    - harimau777 2y ago
      Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths so any definition is going to be fuzzy. However, it's probably useful to specifically say that in capitalism specifically private property and/or capital can be owned. Generally speaking, socialist systems still allow personal property to be owned, they just place restrictions on the ownership or private property and/or capital. It's also probably worth considering that socialism doesn't necessarily have to forbid ownership of private property or capital outright. It could, for example, mean that revenue/profit/income derived from private property or capital is taxed more highly than revenue/profit/income derived from labor.
      - stoperaticless 2y ago
        > Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths Seems a reasonable and useful way to define it. > any definition is going to be fuzzy. Definitely! (That is why I preemptively added my attempt at the definition, to avoid a discussion past each other)
    - kragen 2y ago
      probably a lot of people are using terrible definitions of 'capitalism' such as '“things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”', which explains why these discussions are full of so much nonsense wikipedia's current definition says: Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, profit motive, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor and the production of commodities. In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets. this is not a perfect definition but it is a much better one
  - anon291 2y ago
    Capitalism is biased towards whatever the governing authority says it is. In America, due to onerous regulations and taxes, it's difficult for independent players to become established and the regulations favor a handful of large companies in most sectors. This is not universally true in every country, and they're just as capitalist (arguably more so) than us
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      Onerous? More like pathetically lacking.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I think capitalism is fundamentally different than other systems because of one important nuance. In capitalism you can buy a plot of land and go start a communist society, or a socialist one, or whatever you want. So long as your little society can feed itself, you can do whatever you want. Well even if it can't feed itself, it can still do whatever it wants - but it probably won't be particularly long lived. But in socialist or communist societies you can't just go start up your own little capitalist society.

parineum 2y ago

Capitalism isn't a person, it doesn't want things. The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.

theossuary 2y ago
No, the issue is pedantic people like you who can't understand that "want" is a simple way of saying that a system is biased towards certain outcomes. Capitalism is not an expression of human nature, it's a single possible pareto equilibrium. To say otherwise ignores huge swaths of humans history, and many modern nations which have achieved equilibrium in different ways.
- parineum 2y ago
  Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous. No nation has ever achieved equilibrium but we are enjoying the most peaceful times in history during a time after the previous wave of capitalism-alternatives failed miserably or acquiesced. Just about every measure of human flourishing is in the rise, globally.
  - arresin 2y ago
    And now the pitch.
    - 7thaccount 2y ago
      They're not wrong. Late stage capitalism sucks, but the alternative systems out there seem to lead to mass starvation or total collapse. People have been lifted out of poverty worldwide as well. Some kind of balance seems necessary.
      - harimau777 2y ago
        The welfare states of Western Europe and the Nordic countries seem much better than America's system of late stage capitalism and they have not lead to mass starvation or total collapse. Likewise, America's economy seemed to be much more healthy when it had a more active/successful labor movement.
        Der_Einzige 2y ago
        Those welfare states only exist as such because the US subsidizes their drug discovery, R&D, defense, spooks, and related. Without the US taking one for the team, Europe could not maintain its social democracies or its welfare states.
        harimau777 2y ago
        Then I think that the US should stop taking one for the team and we can work from there.
        7thaccount 2y ago
        I'm not sure if the current success of Norway can be replicated everywhere. It has a small population living off a state oil fund that has something like $300k/person.
  - harimau777 2y ago
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”. > it's a single possible pareto equilibrium I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism > Capitalism is not an expression of human nature Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”). Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths so any definition is going to be fuzzy. However, it's probably useful to specifically say that in capitalism specifically private property and/or capital can be owned. Generally speaking, socialist systems still allow personal property to be owned, they just place restrictions on the ownership or private property and/or capital. It's also probably worth considering that socialism doesn't necessarily have to forbid ownership of private property or capital outright. It could, for example, mean that revenue/profit/income derived from private property or capital is taxed more highly than revenue/profit/income derived from labor.
    - stoperaticless 2y ago
      > Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths Seems a reasonable and useful way to define it. > any definition is going to be fuzzy. Definitely! (That is why I preemptively added my attempt at the definition, to avoid a discussion past each other)
  - kragen 2y ago
    probably a lot of people are using terrible definitions of 'capitalism' such as '“things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”', which explains why these discussions are full of so much nonsense wikipedia's current definition says: Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, profit motive, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor and the production of commodities. In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets. this is not a perfect definition but it is a much better one
- anon291 2y ago
  Capitalism is biased towards whatever the governing authority says it is. In America, due to onerous regulations and taxes, it's difficult for independent players to become established and the regulations favor a handful of large companies in most sectors. This is not universally true in every country, and they're just as capitalist (arguably more so) than us
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Onerous? More like pathetically lacking.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I think capitalism is fundamentally different than other systems because of one important nuance. In capitalism you can buy a plot of land and go start a communist society, or a socialist one, or whatever you want. So long as your little society can feed itself, you can do whatever you want. Well even if it can't feed itself, it can still do whatever it wants - but it probably won't be particularly long lived. But in socialist or communist societies you can't just go start up your own little capitalist society.