Hi all,

I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

  • Dalë@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalism itself isn’t really the problem though, a free market economy should work. The issue is that the owners, be they corporate or private, don’t view their workforces the same way.

    The greed of those at the top is crippling the very people that are driving the economy.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Free market capitalism is inherently about generating wealth for primary stakeholders but externalizing the social and environmental costs. It’s basically how the entire system works.

      • ExecutiveStapler@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are misusing terms, a stakeholder is anyone affected by a company’s actions while a shareholder is anyone with ownership in a company. All shareholders are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are shareholders.

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was using the term in it’s original sense, i.e. investors, employees, and suppliers.

          I didn’t want to say “shareholders” because not all businesses offer shares.

    • hootener@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The greed is baked into capitalism, though, because it’s fundamentally baked into humanity. This is what happens with the unregulated pursuit self interest, and that’s what capitalism encourages.

      Because markets inherently aren’t “free”. Real competition is an illusion because capitalism doesn’t account for all the non-capitalist levers (e.g regulatory capture, cronyism, collusion, political lobbying, etc) that businesses will pull to serve their own interests.

      Capitalism is an incredibly naive approach to economics because its ability to account for human behavior – the fundamental driver of economic systems – is rudimentary at best. And that’s just one of its problems, really.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with all of what you say except I think people are not as naturally greedy as we are led to believe. The idea that selfishness and greed are the sole or primary motivators of human action is capitalist propaganda. The idea that humans are “innately selfish” so an economic system built on selfishness is the only way to run society is capitalist propaganda. There are many other things that motivate us in our lives, and many motivations that would lead to more happiness than the pursuit of selfish goals, and we’re quite capable of following those motives when we’re not compelled by a greed-based society to continually scramble to grab what we can for ourselves.

        • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it’s that all people are greedy, but that a small minority of people are extremely greedy, and they will do anything for money and power. This breaks both capitalism and socialism from becoming the best version of what each could be.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. Any arrangement of society that’s going to work has to have some way to protect itself from this small minority of sociopaths. Unfortunately, in our current system they are firmly in charge.

          • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, and think this is closest to reality the way I’ve observed it. I think most people want more and better things for themselves - this part I believe is a natural instinct present in the majority of human, probably a result of some evolutionary survival mechanism. However, I think people generally also have some limits on what they are willing to do to advantage themselves over others around them. The problem is that this limit varies greatly among individuals. Some people are not willing to take advantage of a fly for self-gain, while others are willing to take advantage of anyone and anything for self-gain. It’s a complex problem that I think is difficult to solve in communities, especially in large, more loosely-knit ones (i.e., anything larger than a tribe or village).

        • BattleGrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, there are also research to back this up. We are tribalistic, and we tend to cover for our kin, even sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of the tribe. Issue is we are most divided at this point in history. There are so many layers of personal ID that we cannot find our kin. Then it just becomes only me, or only my family, or only democrats, or only lgbt, etc. We have been given so many IDs, from music, culture, sports, politics, ideology, education level etc, we can only care about so far.

    • TheFutureIsDelaware@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it absolutely should not work. I can’t even imagine what you are imagining when you say that. HOW could it possibly work long term? Are you familiar with any game theory?

      • o_o@programming.devOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean… it has, hasn’t it? It’s worked pretty well for the last ~200 years. Even in China, the successful parts are the capitalist parts.

        Yes, it’s costing us in terms of environmental sustainability. This is an externality which can be (but hasn’t been) addressed. A failure of government, not a failure of capitalism.

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You should know that most Marxists believe capitalism is an economic engine unlike anything that came before it. That doesn’t mean we can’t build a more rational system. If we wanted to approach the problem scientifically we would study capitalism, understand how it works and came to be, form hypotheses for how to build something better, and then experiment.

          I’d also add that the formation of the modern government, ie liberal democratic states, and the development of capitalism are one and the same. Our totalizing market economy can not exist without governments ensuring conditions are right for market exchange to operate smoothly. As such, I don’t think it’s possible to say a failure of governments are not a failure of capitalism. It’s a package deal so to speak.

        • mamotromico@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a failure of government when the government effectively serves the ruling class (i.e capitalists). It’s a feature, not a bug.

    • Etilla@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Free market works only to create monopolies because in the real world companies compete and then one gets gobbled up and these mega corps can gobble, out compete or lobby for barriers to market if there arent any already inherently. Imagine a new telecomp trying to start but its small then it need a huge investment to cover only a small area, how will that compete with a giant already established telecom? That happens in all businesses and sectora

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problems you listed are a feature of capitalism. The rich owners have more power in the owner-worker relationship. Which means they get richer, which means they get more power, which means they get richer, which means they get more power, etc.

      The only thing resembling some balance was unions, and they were gutted so that guess what, the rich child get richer. Which meant they got more powerful, and we’re back to the cycle.

    • mamotromico@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why should it work? Capitalism by definition works against the free market because it favors monopolization. You need heavy regulations to slow that down at the very least.

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh FFS, the capitalist system shreds ‘free’ markets with abandon. Monopolies eliminate competition. Regulatory capture eliminates anti-monopoly regulations. Capitalism is the perpetual accumulation of more money by investing in the production of more commodities. It collapses when it cannot evolve to expand demand, as it did in the 1930’s. As it is doing again now., although rather slowly, as it has learned how to use governments to mitigate financial collapse. It does indeed use ‘markets’ for exchanges, but it only cares about ‘free’ markets as an ideology. It’s motivating force is accumulation. The ‘greed at the top’ is the system itself, not some bad apples.

    • many_bees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea that it “should work” is both controversial, and doesn’t help. As wealth accumulates at the top, they have less reason to give to anyone else. Human greed is encouraged by capitalism, and you end up with massive inequality when it’s left unfettered. We’re moving towards having robber barons again (or already do, depending on your viewpoint).

      Not to mention, capitalism depends on consumption, of everything, and we are actively consuming the things we need in order for us to continue living on the planet. Capitalism doesn’t care because it’s all about profit, specifically in the short term because humans have short life spans and shorter memory and foresight.

    • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism will always ensure that the greediest are seated at the highest point. Wanting more resources gets you more power under capitalism, so those who are willing to go to the greatest lengths to take capital from others are the ones who will end up with it all. That’s a feature, not a bug. It’s rotten to the core.