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 the article shows that the more capitalist Sweden gets the worse life becomes for the average person though. Socialism and democracy keep capitalism in check, but the capitalists continuously work to undermine socialist policies. And it's an inherently asymmetric relationship because capitalists are the ones with the wealth.
@kravietz another issue that you have to take into account is that ALL capitalist countries, including Scandinavia, are built on top of exploitation of third world countries where majority of the goods are manufactured. That has to be considered as part of the overall system.
@yogthos Are there any countries not based on some form of exploitation? USSR? North Korea?
@kravietz how was USSR based on exploitation, you'll have to elaborate some more on that.
@yogthos In the first placd, millions of GULag prisoners were used for unpaid labour. But even regular workers had no right to strike, wages were insufficient to satisfy basic living needs and protests were suppressed without mercy (Novocherkassk massacre 1962).
@kravietz it's completely absurd to claim that gulags were a major source of economic production in USSR. Also, in reality workers had unions, and overall much better working conditions than many workers in the West have today. Claiming otherwise is simply disingenuous.
@yogthos Can you elaborate what is the use of an union if you have no right to strike and are shot to death if you go on the street to protest?
@kravietz you seem to keep talking about some fantasy version of USSR where everybody kept getting shot to death. You seem to have very little idea what USSR was actually like.
@yogthos The peaceful workers protesting in Novocherkassk were literally shot to death
@kravietz peaceful protestors US literally destroyed entire countries for profit. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and many others come to mind. I guess that's just the cost of doing business under capitalism right?
@yogthos And the notion that outsourcing production to poor countries is "exploitation" is quite absurd. In 80's in Poland you could buy a pair of shoes for maybe month's salary. In France - for two hours salary. When joint ventures started to open in late 80's everyone dreamed of working there (eg IKEA) because this guaranteed not only high salary but also reasonable working hours and that the salary will be actually paid on time.
@kravietz it's not just "outsourcing" work to poor countries. It's active subjugation of poor countries at the barrel of a gun. Take a look at all the wars, coups, and dictatorships that US is responsible for around the world. All of that traces back to capitalist economics of needing a large cheap labor force.
Capitalism is a system that works on gradients. You need to produce goods cheaper than what you sell them for. This creates an inherent incentive to exploit.
@kravietz furthermore, capitalism requires growth to function. This translates into consumerism which is what's killing our biosphere right now. There is a very real possibility that capitalism will make us go extinct as a species.
@yogthos Somehow it were capitalist economies that reduced emissions of ozone-depleting gases and saved Earth's ozone layer. USSR at the same time caused the largest nuclear disaster so far in 1986 and hundreds of smaller yet catastrophic environment pollution incidents.
@kravietz look up how many people died total in Chernobyl disaster and compare it to oil industry disasters in the West.
@yogthos Look how much it costs today to clean up and put safety cover on Chernobyl and who pays for it: Ukraine and... the West. Not USSR.
@kravietz well yeah since USSR doesn't exist anymore, who's paying for all the damage US fossil fuel industry is causing? Who's going to pay for the fucking climate disaster capitalism is responsible for that might well kill us all.
How does the free market solve this problem please do explain?
@yogthos Do you realize that 50% of income of the late USSR and now Russia is from exports of hydrocarbons?
@kravietz you do realize that Russia is a capitalist economy nowadays, and back when USSR existed fossil fuels weren't considered a burning issue by anybody.
Meanwhile, the only large country that's doing anything meaningful about climate change is... China!
@yogthos Oh please, don't lose the discussion so cheaply. Tu quoque argument, really?
@kravietz you're claiming that USSR was somehow unique in terms of environmental damage, but it's clear that the damage is far greater under capitalism. What is your response to that?
@yogthos It's "clear" how exactly?
@kravietz I don't know if you're aware but we have a global climate catastrophe on our hands. 60% of land animals are dead, insects are dying out, oceans are acidifying.
All of that is happening because of capitalist practices. Cutting down of rain forests to make way for palm trees and cattle farms. Ongoing environmental disasters from fossil fuels. Not just the huge spills that nobody does anything about, but also things like fraking that create huge amounts of pollution.
@kravietz capitalism has fucked the planet to the point that we're literally debating whether the human race will go extinct.
Clearly capitalism is incapable of addressing this issue. We set Paris agreement targets that nobody wants to meet because it's bad for business. An we keep pretending like everything is honky dory while our biosphere collapses.
The only country doing anything meaningful is the communist China.
@yogthos You're wrong again, data says something else. All countries, including "communist" China (which is not) and bolivarian Venezuela, just as capitalist countries *did* reduce emissions. Even USA did, with its openly denialist president. And this is a global effort - tribalist thinking like you're implying is nothing better than neconons rants about "socialism".
@kravietz all countries have reduced emissions, but when you look at the numbers per capita, it's pretty clear who the worst offenders are. On top of that, China is actually implementing large scale projects to move off fossils while no capitalist economy is doing that.
The difference with China is that the government has the final say, and it's able to set long term plans for the country. This is not possible to achieve in a free market economy.
@yogthos You're cherry picking again. If you look at most EU countries they already reduced their emissions to a lower level than China.
And the greatest hero here is probably France, who as of today happily emits 65 g CO2/kWh thanks to their country-wide, government-driven nuclear program. Or Sweden (38) with their hydro and nuclear power.
Both having market economy.
@kravietz it's only meaningful to talk about per capita numbers. On top of that, much of the pollution generated by China comes from the goods produced for the West. The consumerist demand is the problem here.
You keep talking about these things like they're happening on completely separate planets. It's an intertwined global economy we're talking about here.
If Europe completely stops importing anything from China and keeps the same pollution levels then you'd have a point.
@yogthos You're partially right... but this partiality matters. Over 70% of CO2 emissions globally originate from power generation and car fuel. Chinese emissions increase comes mostly from private cars, reduction - from low-emission power generation.
@yogthos In market economy BP had an insurance and paid for cleaning up Deep Water Horizon from their operational profit and reserves. And we knew about the disaster from the first minute. USSR denied Chernobyl disaster for a week, just as it covered Kyshtym, Andreev Bay and other nuclear incidents you never heard of.
@kravietz deep water horizon is an ongoing disaster, what's worse it's not even the biggest or the only one. Meanwhile, people responsible for Chrenobyl were actually held accountable, and not a single oil exec has ever had to face consequences of their actions.
In fact, show me a single instance where the oligarchy is held accountable for anything under capitalism.
@kravietz I find the amount of vitriol you have towards USSR really interesting in the context of all the hand waving you do when it comes to discussing the same problems you decry under capitalism. It's as if you're just fitting things into a narrative that fits your worldview.
@yogthos USSR was not only ineffective, authoritarian and oppressive towards its own citizens. It was also exploitative and imperialistic towards its neighbours, which I have personally experienced. This gives me many reasons to dislike it.
In market economy I have built my career, significantly improved my economic status and - most importantly - I'm free to go wherever I wish at any time, rather than being effectively a prisoner of my own country, as I was under communism.
@kravietz yes, I understand that you personally benefit from capitalism. However, my point is that you're benefiting at the cost of many others who are not.
Capitalism is necessarily an asymmetric system where the wealth accumulates at the top. This was my original point that you replied to. You just happen to be in a comfortable place on that gradient.
The reason you're there is simply because you won the birth lottery.
@yogthos The difference is that modern capitalist economies can be, and are, changed without the use of oppression. USSR couldn't change on its own because of the inflexible Marxian ideology that has driven it. And this is why it eventually collapsed.
One of the few countries driven by similarly inflexible ideology is USA and I have similar attitude towards neocons as I have towards Marxism. Levels of personal freedom and rule of law are still much higher though.
@wbtd Russia didn't either - it's a very popular catch phrase there "democracy, freedom of speech and rule of law didn't work", like they ever had one! It's because market economy is orthogonal to democracy, which I'm for quite a while trying to demonstrate to @yogthos Plus, both of them are spectra rather than binary states.
@kravietz what are you talking about. Modern capitalism is utterly and completely rooted in oppression. Perhaps you missed the ongoing protests in France and the brutal suppression there. Remember what happened to the occupy Wallstreet movement. That got put down pretty fast.
While USA does most of the dirty work, every Western country benefits from the countries it subjugates.
@kravietz also since you keep bringing up Poland as an example, I don't see how the situation was improved by capitalism myself https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-poland/
@kravietz again, the problem with that is the gap between the rich and the poor becoming much more significant. What that chart shows is that some people become rich while others starve. This sort of inequality is precisely what USSR avoided.
@yogthos Avoided? With rich CPSU nomenclature shopping at "ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠ·ΠΊΠ°" ("Pewex" in Poland) and the rest living three families in single flat and waiting in overnight queues to buy basic supplies?
@kravietz address the article that I linked then, because it doesn't paint a pretty picture
@kravietz my view is that the society should provide everybody with the basic needs unconditionally, and there shouldn't be a large gap between the rich and the poor.
Capitalism has created a world where 1% of the population controls over half the resources in the world. These people are driving us all towards extinction. This is not the kind of world I want to live in, and I think that's far worse than anything that's happened under communism in USSR.
@yogthos And I 100% subscribe to the first part of your statement.
@kravietz the second part of the statement is what precludes the first part from happening under capitalism.
@kravietz the distribution of wealth is precisely the problem, and I think it's an inherent problem. Scandinavian countries are in a fragile balance right now, and Sweden example that I linked shows that the balance is eroding.
And I don't really understand what you mean by this to be honest:
Marxian economy is economics of shortages, for everyone and arbitrary redistribution by the ruling party.