3 ms·
Whether we as a society support those who cannot productively contribute is orthogonal to capitalism. Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with
by senordevnyc 3mo ago
Whether we as a society support those who cannot productively contribute is orthogonal to capitalism. Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity. You can see this in many developed countries, which have wealth and surplus thanks to their capitalistic markets, but they also have high taxes and a strong safety net.
- tavavex 3mo ago> Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity. No, it has a lot to say about that. Our system encourages self-interest and maximizing profits, and that is what businesses do. Increases in productivity increase how much there is to skim off the products of said productivity. To them, using it for reasons outside profiteering is an immoral and wasteful. All the biggest players are aligned on this, and they are desperate to get another droplet of productivity by spending their money and power in all the right places. Corruption, favoritism, advertising, propaganda, monopolism (to accrue as much leverage over people and governments as possible). This is the default state that the system leads us to, it's not orthogonal, this is its natural outcome. The counterexamples are countries that have found ways to counteract this influence in spite of the incentives. Usually it takes the right culture, as well as strong and competent government that looks out for their citizens. Capitalist absolutists rightfully see that all of this hinders their progress, so the fight between the 'make money at all costs' and 'we need to look out for other people' will always continue. If you don't fight it, you get something akin to the modern US.
- inigyou 3mo agoCapitalism means resource allocation is primarily decided by billionaires. Why would they give resources up in any way that doesn't make them even richer?
- reverius42 3mo agoNo, the term for what you describe is "oligarchy". Under "capitalism", the invisible hand of the free market is supposed to decide resource allocation.
- inigyou 3mo agoThat's right-libertarianism, which is incompatible with capitalism.
- reverius42 3mo agoThat's melting my brain. My understanding is that right-libertarianism and capitalism are not only compatible, they are best friends.
- senordevnyc 3mo agoThese people use “capitalism” to mean crony capitalism, oligarchy, and corporatocracy.
- krapp 3mo agoThose are the forms of capitalism actually practiced in the real world. As opposed to pure free market capitalism, which doesn't actually exist.
- reverius42 3mo agoWhen did free-market capitalism stop being something to aspire to though?
- krapp 3mo agoNo capitalist actually wants free and fair competition. A pure free market isn't the most efficient and productive means of making a profit, and they're in business to make as much money as possible. What gets aspired to under the guise of "free market capitalism" is deregulation of the market in the ways which allow businesses to exploit consumers without consequences, such as lowering of environmental regulations or safety standards, but regulation when it hinders their competitors and lets them entrench their market position. Free market capitalism fails because of simple human nature - greed doesn't optimize for ethics, so neither do markets. Any ideal system that simply expects people to act rationally and ethically en masse is doomed to fail, which is why capitalism only works when regulated and in the context of a society with strong social cohesion and a safety net because certain things like education and healthcare shouldn't be subject to free market dynamics.