4 ms·

Capitalism is not a panacea and its history is steeped in blood. The Dutch VOC, considered one of the first capitalist enterprises, carried out genocide in its

Capitalism is not a panacea and its history is steeped in blood. The Dutch VOC, considered one of the first capitalist enterprises, carried out genocide in its pursuit to control spices in the Indies. Capitalist interests in the US interfered in South American politics for decades, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and funding militias aligned with corporate interests. One of my closest friends is Guatemalan and most of his family was killed during the United Fruit Company conflict. The Russians experienced one of the largest declines in quality of life in human history after the Soviet Union fell and the country became privatized.

zmgsabst 1y ago
Steeped in blood compared to what? History as a whole is full of unsavory things, but we have to decide between things that can happen — and many atrocities have been committed trying to build Utopia. For example, the massive casualties of the USSR. Or those killed in South America — eg, by the FARC.
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  You should also include casualties of the coup in Indonesia, the Casualties of the Korean, Vietnamese, and secret war in Laos. Perhaps also the massacres performed by the Contras in Nicaragua,
- mcv 1y ago
  > Steeped in blood compared to what? Compared to social democracy and probably some other systems that protect the rights and interests of the poorest in society.
  - tartarus4o 1y ago
    [dead]
  - roenxi 1y ago
    If we look at a map of places where Socialist Democratic parties are active [0, 1] it actually looks like a map of people who generally have pretty terrible living conditions for the poorest in society. Mainly because it covers most of the known world so it'd reflect the normal living conditions for poor people. And is an ideology that is well integrated with capitalism, I happen to note. It is pretty hard to say that the social democracy is free from a bloody history vs capitalism when people like the US Dems claim to be part of the social democrats. They're pretty blood-spattered. They're part of the governing system of the largest and most aggressive military in the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance
    - mcv 1y ago
      It's not just about the parties, but about the systems. Dutch social democratic parties haven't been in power in ages, but the foundation of our economy is social democratic, and right-wing parties don't dare to touch it. People like not having to worry about paid sick leave, maternity leave, unemployment, healthcare, disability, and a million other little things. That stuff is the fabric of our society. All over northern Europe, you find high taxes, strong social safety nets, good healthcare, little violence, high levels of happiness and personal freedom, and high GDPs. This is the combination that works. And the US was also on this path after WW2, but reverted course during the Reagan years, with all the consequences you see today.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. Pretty easy to see that representing the blood steeped face of capitalism. They still have stock exchanges in Amsterdam, so they haven't sworn off the shareholders. Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. Really easy, in fact - the VOC was mostly external and welfare is mostly internal, the systems don't need to interact at all. It is impossible to hold the Dutch up as a group who have rid themselves of the blood-steeped history of capitalism when they are (1) a poster child of the blood-steeped history of capitalism (2) still supporting and encouraging capitalists. And (3) your comment could be interpreted as saying the social democrats don't actually hold power. At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. And to throw in a (4) have they apologised and made reparations for the VOC? It isn't obvious they've even repudiated the blood-soaked history of capitalism although maybe they have; I don't track Dutch politics. I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare?
4899641178855 1y ago
[dead]

zmgsabst 1y ago

Steeped in blood compared to what? History as a whole is full of unsavory things, but we have to decide between things that can happen — and many atrocities have been committed trying to build Utopia. For example, the massive casualties of the USSR. Or those killed in South America — eg, by the FARC.

MSFT_Edging 1y ago
You should also include casualties of the coup in Indonesia, the Casualties of the Korean, Vietnamese, and secret war in Laos. Perhaps also the massacres performed by the Contras in Nicaragua,
mcv 1y ago
> Steeped in blood compared to what? Compared to social democracy and probably some other systems that protect the rights and interests of the poorest in society.
- tartarus4o 1y ago
  [dead]
- roenxi 1y ago
  If we look at a map of places where Socialist Democratic parties are active [0, 1] it actually looks like a map of people who generally have pretty terrible living conditions for the poorest in society. Mainly because it covers most of the known world so it'd reflect the normal living conditions for poor people. And is an ideology that is well integrated with capitalism, I happen to note. It is pretty hard to say that the social democracy is free from a bloody history vs capitalism when people like the US Dems claim to be part of the social democrats. They're pretty blood-spattered. They're part of the governing system of the largest and most aggressive military in the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance
  - mcv 1y ago
    It's not just about the parties, but about the systems. Dutch social democratic parties haven't been in power in ages, but the foundation of our economy is social democratic, and right-wing parties don't dare to touch it. People like not having to worry about paid sick leave, maternity leave, unemployment, healthcare, disability, and a million other little things. That stuff is the fabric of our society. All over northern Europe, you find high taxes, strong social safety nets, good healthcare, little violence, high levels of happiness and personal freedom, and high GDPs. This is the combination that works. And the US was also on this path after WW2, but reverted course during the Reagan years, with all the consequences you see today.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread. Pretty easy to see that representing the blood steeped face of capitalism. They still have stock exchanges in Amsterdam, so they haven't sworn off the shareholders. Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism. It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state. Really easy, in fact - the VOC was mostly external and welfare is mostly internal, the systems don't need to interact at all. It is impossible to hold the Dutch up as a group who have rid themselves of the blood-steeped history of capitalism when they are (1) a poster child of the blood-steeped history of capitalism (2) still supporting and encouraging capitalists. And (3) your comment could be interpreted as saying the social democrats don't actually hold power. At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries. And to throw in a (4) have they apologised and made reparations for the VOC? It isn't obvious they've even repudiated the blood-soaked history of capitalism although maybe they have; I don't track Dutch politics. I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare?

4899641178855 1y ago

[dead]