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.

@yogthos Because market economy generates wealth in general. Then it's only matter of redistribution. US does it poorly, Scandinavian countries - much better.

Marxian economy is economics of shortages, for everyone and arbitrary redistribution by the ruling party.

@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.

@yogthos Marxian economy is by its very core principles economy of shortage (as opposed to surplus is capitalism). And is less effective due to constructs such as central planning and prices based on labour value theory.

@kravietz so you're saying it's less effective, but clearly the opposite is the case. USSR achieved stunning economic growth that's simply unmatched by any capitalist economy.

Capitalist economy is inherently inefficient because competition is always more wasteful than cooperation.

On top of that, majority of work done in a capitalist society adds zero value to society. It's simply done to make somebody profit.

@yogthos But how work in USSR could have been based on "cooperation rather than competition" if everyone was forced to compete to finish the Plan? You evidently have no idea how it worked in reality, do you? Per excellent 1986 article by Nikolai Shmelev "Advances and debts" (Аванси и долги) over 30% of supplies in USSR were held as reserves by factories just to ensure they can satisfy the Plan and directors are not jailed - enormous waste of resources!

@kravietz in a vacuum that looks bad, but once you compare to what happens with capitalist production it's a model of efficiency. Goods are literally destroyed to keep the market price up, food is regularly wasted while people starve, planned obsolescence is a standard practice.

@yogthos In modern West (or Russia for that matter) expiring or surplus is routinely given to charities, who support homeless. At the same time man-made famines in USSR and China killed millions of people.

@kravietz let's look at some actual factual things from the study I linked here

@kravietz
to start Norway, Denmark and Sweden are listed as capitalist in the study

@kravietz
The income categories are determined by per-capita GNP. Here's how it shakes out.

@yogthos This data is also completely invented - in 80's Poland ("upper middle income socialist") an average monthly salary was $20 (twenty dollars), so 10x less than the number given in the article.