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 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.
@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".
@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.
@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.