Capitalism is the most efficient system possible for concentrating the wealth in hands of as few people as possible.
@yogthos Scandinavian one, really?
@kravietz Sweden is an interesting case study https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/08/the-social-democratic-road-to-socialism
I think capitalism has a fundamental problem that it accumulates the wealth in the upper class. Then this class starts using this wealth to influence policy in their favor creating a downward spiral. So the setup seems like it's inherently fragile.
@yogthos If both USA and Sweden have capitalist economy, and in one the accumulation happens, and in the other it doesn't, then the capitalist economy isn't the root cause. Let's just apply some scientific thinking here.
@kravietz @yogthos They aren't both capitalist. Poltically they are both, theoretically, democracies; but Sweden is socialist and the USA is capitalist. It's not easy to cleanly separate politics and economics in this case, but in Sweden (as in Scotland, but not in England) education, healthcare and housing are regarded as fundamental rights guaranteed by the state to every citizen. The state therefore uses a redistributive model of economics, including taxation and long-term planning, to insure that these goods are delivered to every citizen. That the state provides these goods is considered a fundamental part of the social contract, and it is much more important than, for example, the right to individual wealth.
In the USA, by contract, the social contract through which goverment is empowered is (at present) hotly contested and there is no consensus that the government should guarantee any goods to all people. There is a consensus that the government should guarantee the right to undertake economic activity for profit, and that the government should guarantee the right to private property. Thus the government builds motorways and acts aggresively to protect US corporations worldwide, but they do not guarantee healthcare, education or housing. Some states (California is a good example) do guarantee education.
One big question in the USA right now is, "to whom should the government guarantee the right to undertake economic activity for profit" and this hinges on the question of whether corporations should enjoy the same kind of legal and moral personhood as individual humans. Hence: should corporations be allowed to influence elections - which they presently are.
Other countries, such as Bangladesh and New Zealand, are presently asking if natural non-human persons such as lakes, mountains or species should have the right to exist guaranteed by the state. The USA constitution is so strongly biased towards human exceptionalism and hard Protestant individualism that this kind of legal challenge is almost unimaginable there.
@wbtd @yogthos And I definitely don't defend the USA social-economic model. I like and support the Scandinavian model.
I was however born in a country that described itself as "socialist on the way to communism" and did enforce many of the Marxian economy instruments - central planning, pricing based on LV theory, lack of privately owned means of production.
This was truly "socialist economy". Swedish economy was and is light years far from it.
I was born in the USA but left long ago. As a new Scot with European and Asian colleagues and friends, I have sometimes found myself in conversation with folks who came from "socialism on the way to communism" countries and the use of terms like "socialism" is always difficult. Scotland sees itself as socialist in a positive sense (guaranteeing social goods) but I certainly understand your aversion to the term if it has that original meaning.
