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.
@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 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 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 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.
