Technically correct because greed is the cause of capitalism. But don’t be fooled into thinking there’s a long term, greed restrained capitalism that is going to work out for us; wealth is power. With sufficient wealth, a man can raise an army.
As soon as you allow him to accumulate it, you raise the possibility that he will buy your politicians and corrupt your citizens through amplifying his messages to make society ever greedier in his image. He will hire people to make unlawful works, and pay the fines and dodge the court room.
When you resist this corruption, they respond with fascism.
Greed is not the cause of capitalism. Capitalism exists to create value for society. My grandfather, an immigrant, opened a bakery 50 years ago to serve his community and raise his family. I, an immigrant, opened a grocery store 10 years ago to serve my community and raise my family. Capitalism can be honest & hard work. In both cases, community over profits was a core principle.
Greed comes with accumulation and has to be restrained.
Capitalism doesn’t really exist soley in the micro, you must factor in the macro. A small gorcery store exists in the context of Capitalism, it isn’t Capitalist itself. The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities, and into a higher quantity of money, thus seeding even more money for more commodoties and even more money after that in an endless loop.
The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities in an endless loop.
I disagree. The purpose of capitalism systemically is to simply allow for value creation for the entire ecosystem (customers, employees, vendors) and give anyone the individual freedom to do so.
Current Western flavor of capitalism has allowed short-sighted greed to take over because Wall St demands so.
On an ideological level, you and I are the same - community over commerce. I support capitalism only under such principles.
Capitalism did not arise out of ideological reasons, but as a material process with the shift from small manufacturing to large industry. It arised historically, not because it is natural (it’s only a few hundred years old) nor because someone thought it was a good idea. The mechanical process is as I described. Ideological justifications for it, ie liberalism, arose after the fact.
Value is created even in non-Capitalist systems, and further, western Capitalism is Capitalism of a more developed stage. You cannot perpetuate small market mechanics, small firms will either grow or die. Once markets coalesce, there really is nowhere to go but revolution and Socialism, or barbarism and collapse.
That’s not a solution, though. Cooperatives within Capitalism are subject to the same rules as other firms, only without firm control of the state. These cooperatives will either grow or die, and you end up at the same necessary point, revolution and Socialism, or barbarism. Centralization is a fact of markets that sustain over a long period of time, ergo we should master those laws to make it as democratic and equitable a system as possible. In other words, Socialism.
My brother, I gave you a version of capitalism where workers globally own the means of production. We’ll even put measures against monopolization, labor exploitation, and short term profit seeking. Hell even add 100% taxation over a billion dollars so nobody gets too big. You’ll still won’t like it because it ain’t communism.
We won’t get to that fantasy land you described, so why bother creating it in our mind palaces? Utopia-building isn’t a useful form of analysis when describing how we get from A to B. You need to take ownership of the State for that to work, and end Capitalism to begin with.
I think the way forward is to have socialism provide all necessities for people - meal kits, utilities, shelter, transport, free gasoline, healthcare, and so forth that are designed to be boring but effective. Capitalism can be used to obtain luxuries - a wider variety of food, fancier cars, bigger houses, brazilian buttlifts, singing bass decorations, and so forth. Money is solely used for such things.
By doing it this way, people can choose to protest or strike without suffering too much from doing so. Work becomes optional, since survival is ensured. Combined with imposing floors and ceilings on wealth, we can promote democracy and socialism, without sacrificing the vitality of a healthy capitalism.
That’s not really an accurate overview of what constitutes Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is not “markets” and Socialism isn’t government services, either. They are each determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, ie in control of the state, large firms, and key industries. Private Ownership as principle is Capitalism, Public Ownership as principle is Socialism. Both systems have a private and a public sector, but the trajectory of the system is very different.
It sounds like you’re talking about the Nordic countries, ie deteriorating Imperialist states that are seeing crumbling worker protections and rely on super-exploitation of the Global South to subsidize cost of living and safety nets.
Technically correct because greed is the cause of capitalism. But don’t be fooled into thinking there’s a long term, greed restrained capitalism that is going to work out for us; wealth is power. With sufficient wealth, a man can raise an army.
As soon as you allow him to accumulate it, you raise the possibility that he will buy your politicians and corrupt your citizens through amplifying his messages to make society ever greedier in his image. He will hire people to make unlawful works, and pay the fines and dodge the court room.
When you resist this corruption, they respond with fascism.
Greed is not the cause of capitalism. Capitalism exists to create value for society. My grandfather, an immigrant, opened a bakery 50 years ago to serve his community and raise his family. I, an immigrant, opened a grocery store 10 years ago to serve my community and raise my family. Capitalism can be honest & hard work. In both cases, community over profits was a core principle.
Greed comes with accumulation and has to be restrained.
Capitalism doesn’t really exist soley in the micro, you must factor in the macro. A small gorcery store exists in the context of Capitalism, it isn’t Capitalist itself. The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities, and into a higher quantity of money, thus seeding even more money for more commodoties and even more money after that in an endless loop.
I disagree. The purpose of capitalism systemically is to simply allow for value creation for the entire ecosystem (customers, employees, vendors) and give anyone the individual freedom to do so.
Current Western flavor of capitalism has allowed short-sighted greed to take over because Wall St demands so.
On an ideological level, you and I are the same - community over commerce. I support capitalism only under such principles.
Capitalism did not arise out of ideological reasons, but as a material process with the shift from small manufacturing to large industry. It arised historically, not because it is natural (it’s only a few hundred years old) nor because someone thought it was a good idea. The mechanical process is as I described. Ideological justifications for it, ie liberalism, arose after the fact.
Value is created even in non-Capitalist systems, and further, western Capitalism is Capitalism of a more developed stage. You cannot perpetuate small market mechanics, small firms will either grow or die. Once markets coalesce, there really is nowhere to go but revolution and Socialism, or barbarism and collapse.
The problem of ‘growing big’ has to be solved via cooperatives operating in the same markets, not by disbanding the entire system.
That’s not a solution, though. Cooperatives within Capitalism are subject to the same rules as other firms, only without firm control of the state. These cooperatives will either grow or die, and you end up at the same necessary point, revolution and Socialism, or barbarism. Centralization is a fact of markets that sustain over a long period of time, ergo we should master those laws to make it as democratic and equitable a system as possible. In other words, Socialism.
My brother, I gave you a version of capitalism where workers globally own the means of production. We’ll even put measures against monopolization, labor exploitation, and short term profit seeking. Hell even add 100% taxation over a billion dollars so nobody gets too big. You’ll still won’t like it because it ain’t communism.
We won’t get to that fantasy land you described, so why bother creating it in our mind palaces? Utopia-building isn’t a useful form of analysis when describing how we get from A to B. You need to take ownership of the State for that to work, and end Capitalism to begin with.
With these measures, there won’t be a free market, which means the creation of value will be regulated. I don’t see why you would call it capitalism.
I think the way forward is to have socialism provide all necessities for people - meal kits, utilities, shelter, transport, free gasoline, healthcare, and so forth that are designed to be boring but effective. Capitalism can be used to obtain luxuries - a wider variety of food, fancier cars, bigger houses, brazilian buttlifts, singing bass decorations, and so forth. Money is solely used for such things.
By doing it this way, people can choose to protest or strike without suffering too much from doing so. Work becomes optional, since survival is ensured. Combined with imposing floors and ceilings on wealth, we can promote democracy and socialism, without sacrificing the vitality of a healthy capitalism.
That’s not really an accurate overview of what constitutes Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is not “markets” and Socialism isn’t government services, either. They are each determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, ie in control of the state, large firms, and key industries. Private Ownership as principle is Capitalism, Public Ownership as principle is Socialism. Both systems have a private and a public sector, but the trajectory of the system is very different.
It sounds like you’re talking about the Nordic countries, ie deteriorating Imperialist states that are seeing crumbling worker protections and rely on super-exploitation of the Global South to subsidize cost of living and safety nets.
That sounds lovely to me!