Well, economic system is flawed because mutated ape is flawed. It’s all flawed everything is flawed.
That’s not a particularly useful statement, that’s more nihilism. That kind of rhetoric leads to conclusions like “if everything is flawed, why fix it?” Instead of “how are systems flawed, and how can we overcome them?”
I definitely never claim to be an optimist. But I didn’t argue that either. I was just commenting on the inherent fallibility of anything created by humans, since we seem to have an annoying habit of thinking that whatever human-created systems we like are somehow endowed with divine purpose and will never fail us. The great invisible hand of the market, and all that.
Nobody believes that, though, you’re punching ghosts.
Not really nihilistic if it is solely acknowledging the truth. That kind of conclusion is yours and not his. You’re giving up on fixing things.
Either you are to believe man capable enough at fixing things or not even capable of processing a basic factoid.
However both can’t be true, if you have to tell someone how to think - then your goal is not the absolute conclusion.
I feel people will wake up to it, not from the sirens but by the heat and smoke. Much too late, but folks learn from mistakes mainly.
It just saddens me they have co-opted the message of a great thinker into a simple guide of indentured servitude. While at the same time dismissing the cleansing needed and done.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say, here. Proper analysis of problems is a requirement for understanding how to solve them, but they were saying that all systems are flawed in a manner that depicts all of them as equally flawed, which is bad logic.
Never was it said equally. Only flawed, is it not true all is flawed?
Yes their should be more deliberation and you could have done so. However instead you focused on his act of communication, people want change but when times change people cower.
Let folks speak up and talk with them, rather than critiquing their very act. You are essentially creating an internal dilemma with someone you ultimately agree with in cause.
It is counteproductive, however simple communications get simple points across. Easy to get but easy to misconstrue. So it is important to contextualize it, which you again could have done, but instead acted upon his manner of action.
Be what you want from others.
Jesus Christ, go back to reddit.
A lot of folks in the replies don’t like imagining they might be problematic… Sorry folks; we’re all to blame.
This is just a thought terminating cliche that capitalists have developed now that the problems with the system are undeniable. It’s the classic retort of the scum bag, after they’ve realized “I didn’t do it” won’t fly, to say “well, everyone does it!"
No. I’m not minimizing the role capitalism has, I’m reminding people that as long as they participate in any capacity in capitalism that they are causing harm. Look at the replies to my post. They verify what I said. People will go to great lengths to separate themselves from fault.
a single flight on a private jet smashes any amount of carbon I could output in my entire lifetime. it is not all of us equally, it is a handful of ultrawealthy people destroying the planet.
Carbon tax. Double rates for private jets.
Taxes just become prices for being evil when targeted this way, they don’t solve the fundamental reason for the existence of the issue. Solve the problem, don’t band-aid it.
Use the taxes to subsidise green alternatives. Carbon taxes on fuel get spent on building bike lanes for example.
That can be a somewhat nice supplement, but not a solution. The solution is, of course, Socialism, and strong central planning in infrastructure such as green energy and public transit.
Yet here you are using a device created by both stripping the earth of resources and exploiting already suffering humans to argue that you’re not a significant part of the problem… Yes the ultra wealthy are worse, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t bad.
Oh you got me. This comic has negated everything I’ve said and proven that my perspective is just wrong…
Correct
Nah, this is just defeatism. If people want to exist in society, they have to play by the rules of society, so it’s better to change society.
Those kids covered in cobalt are just trying to exist in a society.
This kind of “you choose to use deeply exploitative systems that have no real alternatives” rhetoric is wrong. If there are no real alternatives within the system, then it is important to push to change the system, not blame those who exist within it. Blame the Capitalists for engaging in horrible labor practices, and those complacent. Don’t blame the people engaging with what’s available.
I always felt capitalism was just humans at their most pure and Evil. At their worst. In their most unfettered state.
It’s more of a natural development from the rise of industry, that doesn’t mean it’s eternal, but it does mean we can learn how to move beyond it and into Socialism.
Soviet Socialism was very polluting as well
Sure, it was also a developing country in a world that hadn’t created cheap renewables. They also invested in research for nuclear power as well.
See Chernobyl as to why the politburo system and the need for the committee to have an opinion on everything was so flawed. Also look at Kruschev and his attempt to pivot agriculture to corn.
Socialism absolutely works, we use it all the time. But the Soviet system was not a good implementation of Socialism. The workers did not own the means of production nor did they have much power.
Chernobyl was a cascading series of errors, not a fundamental flaw with Socialism. Kruschev’s reforms were largely bad, yes, but that too isn’t a problem with Socialism itself.
I don’t know what you mean by “we use Socialism all the time.” Who? Socialism is a descriptor for an entire system, not portions of it. Unless you think we are both Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc, then “we” don’t use Socialism.
The Soviet System was absolutely a good implementation of Socialism. It was not perfect, but it was real and came with real victories. The Working Class did own the means of production, and held all of the power, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Chernobyl was much worse than it had any need to be due to meddling from political officers and a general structure of fear of challenging them. A failed test light started the problem however shutting down the plant before it got out of hand was delayed. Also. it was not reported to the wider affected world until the Swedes raised the alarm after fallout had reached their detectors.
https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-19-mn-16808-story.html
https://www.voiceofbelarus.com/how-and-why-authorities-hid-truth-about-chernobyl/
The average Soviet farmer rarely benefitted from their labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union
The same for the average factory worker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_reform_in_the_Soviet_Union,_1956–1962
Then you only need to look to the current oligarchs and where they came from in the fall of the Soviet Union to see how wealth was already stratified in such a way as Clinton and Western banks could assist in raiding what was left of the Soviet coffers.
https://jacobin.com/2017/03/russia-us-clinton-boris-yeltsin-elections-interference-trump/
The Soviet system being inherently top down and heirarchal is susceptible to Dictatorship and political hegemony. It is patently not a good system. I don’t need to even get into the minor rebellions Trotsky put down or the rise of Stalin and his famine.
Chernobyl was a cascading list of failures not unique to Socialism, nor incapable of being solved. Fukushima was also a cascading list of failures in a Capitalist country. Are you just anti-Nuclear? There can be some legitimacy to that, but to blame a nuclear disaster on Socialism specifically when similar failures happen in Capitalism is wrong, it’s a procedural issue.
As for the Peasantry and Proletariat, wealth disparity drastically shrank, while GDP grew dramatically:
Metrics improved drastically. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates went from the low 30s to 99.9%, healthcare and education both became free and grew to be high quality, the economy was democratized, and working hours lowered as compared to Capitalism. Famine, when previously common, was ended. If you want to blame Socialism for famine in a country that had regular famines, you need to credit it for ending famine as well.
I don’t know what you mean by the Soviet system being “susceptible to dictatorship” any more than any other system, it was both top-down and bottom-up. The Working Class held control of the State and oppressed the bourgeoisie.
Easy answers are never right. So capitalism is not >the< problem. For example: Look at the the history of the Soviet Union. Its way more complex
In trying to denounce an “easy answer,” you came to worse conclusions. The Soviet model was far better than Capitalism is now for the post-Soviet states, and Socialism was far better than Tsarism as well.
Living in a post-soviet state, you’re pretty damn wrong.
Statistically, most people living in post-soviet states disagree with you, and this number gets higher when it polls specifically people old enough to have actually lived in Socialism. We can talk about specifics if you want, but just saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t really give me anything to respond to.
The people old enough to remember communism executed Caucescu in Romania and ousted both the Rákosi and the Kádár system in Hungary, the former through a violent uprising that required the USSR Red Army to intervene and start executing people. Sounds like people loved them, doesn’t it?
I’d go into detail through personal details how shit the system was on the ground, or through data how both systems were so badly ran that people starved to death (Rákosi) or that we’ve accumulated a debt spiral that Hungary didn’t fully repay until the 2000s (Kádár), but we both know you already decided they were superior anyway, so I won’t bother.
and now, thanks to capitalism, we’re getting into a new debt spiral
and before you start defending the current system, ask yourself, why is it “communism’s” (i would debate that it was ever actually communist) fault that their cronyism ruined the system, but now it’s not capitalism’s?72% of Hungarians claim they are worse off now than under Communism according to polling data. That isn’t a slim majority at all.
There’s much that can be critiqued about the USSR, but Socialism remained a better system than Capitalism and Tsarism.
Yeah, I bet none of that 72% ever stood in line at the bakery, merely hoping there was still some bread left when they got to their turn. Or having to help offload PB gas bottles from the train, because otherwise it was almost guaranteed there wouldn’t be gas to cook with.
As for the poll, there’s a lot of complex social reasons behind it. But what I consider the most important is that we have the newest brand of authoritian government in power for the majority of the last 24 years with completely unchecked power, and the only things they are good at is corruption and brainwashing the voting populus. The last decade has been an unmitigated failure for Hungary, and despite that, it’s still ahead of the communist system I grew up in. We are quickly moving back to the same authoritarian system, though.
Edit: and since our current system is very intent on replicating the mistakes of the ole’ communist system in exactly the same manner, we are very much on track to implode again in the same way. Yay for us.
Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to grapple with polling results, and vague gesturing at issues rather than actually grappling with how Socialism was better than Capitalism.
It’s inevitable to think capitalism is wrong, but it’s easier to fix than Communism or any other system.
I stopped to shout against capitalism simply cause we do not have a better solution yet. Also when capitalism gets wrong, it’s mostly because a lack of regulations. A balanced system, like socialdemocracies in Scandinavia are a good example.
Unfortunately it seems we are going towards autocracies everywhere, and that’s not capitalism’s fault but just human greediness. So in other word, we’re the problem, otherwise Socialism would reign all over the world.
Capitalism erases its own foundations, Imperialist countries like the Nordics you use as good examples depend on hyper-exploitation of the Global South. The answer is Socialism, which is an inevitable process because over time Capitalism erases the foundations it stands on and no system is static, it always moves towards the next stages or it dies. Look at businesses, they never maintain static sizes, they either grow or die, or stay small enough to be irrelevant, in aggregate.
There’s frankly so many false assumptions here that it would take many well-developed comments to answer them all.
Socialism, ok, like which one?
Venezuela?
Most Socialists would not consider Venezuela to be Socialist, it has a sort of quasi-socialism but really is Capitalist, sort of like the Nordic Countries if they weren’t Imperialist. When Socialists refer to Socialism, they refer to AES, generally, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the former USSR.
The reason your comment is hard to properly address is because there are numerous questionable claims. How does one “fix Capitalism?” The answer you gave was using Imperialism to fund safety nets, that “works” for a small group of people at the expense of a much larger group. When you say “when Capitalism goes wrong, it’s due to a lack of regulations,” you don’t analyze who controls whether or not regulations are erased, ie the bourgeoisie, ergo all Capitalism is subject to the same failure.
Your solution is to blame everything on greed as though no solution can exist, this type of nihilism gets in the way of actually solving any problems, and you speak as though you have authority despite showing no apparant understanding of what Socialists want, or what their critique of Capitalism truly is. I’d take a step back and read some more, or ask questions like you started doing.
It feels to me you’re supposing a lot of stuff on top of the few words I wrote, and you started polarising the discussion.
I grown up in a communist family and I felt like for many years of my life, despite living in a democratic land. I’m quite far away from the capiralistic supporter you may think I am.
Let me understand. Do you think Russia, NK, Cambodia, Kuba, PRC, Vietnam and so on are/were good place to live in? Do you live in one of those places?
I responded to what you wrote, nothing more.
The very fact that you contrast Communism with Democracy, when Communism is democratic, is why it’s hard to take anything you’re saying seriously. Either you’re trying to critique Communism but haven’t actually done the critiquing so it just appears to be nonsense, or you legitimately don’t know that Communism is democratic. Neither give me much to work with.
To answer your question:
-
The Russian Federation is Capitalist, and thus irrelevant
-
The USSR was Socialist, and was better to live in than post-Soviet or pre-Soviet Russia.
-
The DPRK is Socialist, and is under an incredibly brutal trade embargo, and has had to recover from US attempts at genocide via destroying 80% of buildings and killing millions.
-
Cambodia was never really Socialist, its Quasi-Socialism under Pol Pot is divorced from any actual Marxist analysis and Pol Pot was supported by the US.
-
Cuba is, like the DPRK, under a brutal trade embargo and under constant pressure from thr United States. Despite that, key metrics like Life Expectancy are higher than neighboring Capitalist countries that aren’t closed off from the rest of the world.
-
The PRC is Socialist, and out of all of these countries is the one I would most like to live in. I am very bullish on the PRC continuing to make great strides in quality of life, and will soon become the de facto world power.
-
Vietnam is pretty cool, from my understanding. Socialism has been tremendously beneficial to the Vietnamese, and overthrowing French Colonialism was a massive step forward.
I live in the US Empire, and I understand that I live in the most Imperialist country on the planet. I want the Empire to fall, and to work towards more even development and industrialization along cooperative lines.
-
