Capitalism Sucks

[PureX]

I'd rather be exploited by capitalists than by your socialists.

"But if you leave the forced labor camp the evil socialist BOOGEY MAN will get you!" ... Says all the guys in charge of the labor camp.

 

[Nakosis]

"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Socialism - Other early socialists

So, how do they determine who is entitled to what?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't want to misrepresent. I appreciate that it does allow other businesses to sell through its interface, but I am swayed by some videos I've found talking about its anti competitive practices. Below is one.

Spoiler: Particularly Nasty Accusation Against Amazon

I just use the Kindle as an example. It is a tremendously awesome thing that opens the floodgates of books your have available to read, often with very cheap or free pricing, with a selection that's most likely better than what the local library has. An entire world of books all in the palm of your hand.
That's hard to compete against. Barnes and Nobles hasn't been nearly as successful at it. About the only reason I can see people still using libraries and book stores are those who would prefer having a physical book in their hands.

 

[PureX]

So, how do they determine who is entitled to what?

Collectively. That's why it's called "socialism". Control of the production and sale of goods and services is being shared by those effected by that commercial endeavor. The investor still gets a say, but so do the producers (workers), the consumers, and the community in which the commerce is being conducted. Because they are ALL being effected by the conduct of that commercial endeavor.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"But if you leave the forced labor camp the evil socialist BOOGEY MAN will get you!" ... Says the guys in charge of the labor camp.

From our conversations, Revoltingest is far more fair minded than than nearly everyone I've worked for. It's not even a contest or question with most jobs I've had.
You may want to bark up a different tree.

 

[PureX]

From our conversations, Revoltingest is far more fair minded than than nearly everyone I've worked for. It's not even a contest or question with most jobs I've had.
You may want to bark up a different tree.

He has no idea what socialism is, and has no intention of even considering it. All he's interested in is presenting socialism as the root of all evil in every conversation about the failure of capitalism so he can scare us all into rejecting socialism in blind ignorance.

 

[Nakosis]

Collectively. That's why it's called "socialism". Control of the production and sale of goods and services is being shared by those effected by that commercial endeavor. The investor still gets a say, but so do the producers (workers), the consumers, and the community in which the commerce is being conducted. Because they are ALL being effected by the conduct of that commercial endeavor.

This is "overall" how capitalism works as well. The difference being that individually, everyone gets to determine the value of their contribution. This freedom a capitalist would see as being limited by the "invisible hand" of the free market. Socialists tries to impose an artificial limitation.

In the past, this artificial limitation usually ends up, meaning less for everyone. Government can't please everyone's self interest so they have to impose the lowest common denominator on everyone. Everyone has to be equally poor.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It had it's place, but there has to be a better way.

As long as it has government oversight, it can work. Unfettered capitalism totally sucks.

 

[Twilight Hue]

q1

CEOs typically have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize share value. They could be the least greedy people in the world and still have it as their job to maximize profit everywhere.

This is not due to individual failure or vice; Jeff Bezos is not failing here, he is succeeding at what he set out to do in the beginning, which was to make as much money as humanly possible. The problem lies in what our economic model defines as success, not in any individual's inability to live up to quasireligious morals that most people don't follow anyway.

I have to disagree here. It's greed at the expense of humanity.

Now greed was always around, but the human aspect of a business is largely removed , and people became thereafter to be known as a "unit of labor".

Granted shares are a big thing, but the disposition of CEOs has been radicalized from focus on the company as a main priority to focus on shareholder gain. In turn the company itself went from a main focus to just a tool now to be exploited and discarded after its usefulness has worn out.

 

[Laika]

It had it's place, but there has to be a better way.

Whilst I sympathise greatly with the far left, I'm going to have to side with @Revoltingest on this one. The most ironic thing is that capitalism has created the illusion that political and economic systems are almost commodities on sale and it is a matter of going in to a polling station and choosing them as if they could be conjured out of thin air. Politics has become an industry with political parties acting as firms producing policies and candidates and sell themselves as brands to the public in order to gain support and win elections. When, however, we are discussing a post-capitalist system, we are asking ourselves to go completely beyond this competitive marketplace of ideas and of the electoral politics of parties.

There is regrettably a fairly good case to be made that this competitive exchange of ideas that make proposals for "democratic socialism" and political pluralism possible, is incompatible with centralised economic planning that a state-driven socialism leads to. It does appear that you can't have competitive elections without a competitive marketplace and the centralisation of economic power does produce a centralisation of political power in to the hands of one party.

Whilst public opposition to Communism is deep, it was by far the most ambitious attempt to completely replace capitalism in human history and people do not seem to appreciate that the Soviets were practically re-inventing the wheel in terms of economic, political and social institutions. I don't agree with all the propaganda and the Cold War did lead many people to exaggerations on just how bad Communism was. But there is some sort of relationship between individual liberty and the growing power of the state that the left has consistently failed to address and buried it's head in the sand.

That being said, Communist Parties in the UK and the US never seem to get more than 0.1%-0.5% of the votes in national elections since at least the middle of the last century. Communism isn't an imminent threat and even the leftward shift today with Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn hasn't led these parties to become more mainstream. The right has grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Communism and Socialism today, but they are not completely wrong in pointing to a long and uncomfortable history.

 

[exchemist]

I haven't bought anything on Amazon in months, because I want there to be other businesses. I'm tired of helping to destroy businesses. I'm trying (its more expensive) to encourage competition.

One thing that helps is the search engine on Amazon is very frustrating. For example if I put 'Rebar' in no rebar comes up. Instead I get a bunch of other crap shoved disrespectfully into my face. When I feel insulted like that it helps remind me of my morals.

I also avoid Amazon like the plague. In my case the catalyst was the way it kept trying to trick me into signing up for a "free" trial of Prime - which then converts into a monthly fee forever, unless you find your way, laboriously, through the small print, to the tiny back-door to cancel it. I got tricked into it once, spent half an hour trying to cancel it and vowed not to fall for it again. It's a filthy sort of scammy behaviour for a major corporation.

Plus the knowledge that one is financing vanity trips into space aboard Bell End One, the most penis-shaped spacecraft of all time:

So yeah, count me as an Amazon refusenik.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't want to misrepresent. I appreciate that it does allow other businesses to sell through its interface, but I am swayed by some videos I've found talking about its anti competitive practices. Below is one.

Spoiler: Particularly Nasty Accusation Against Amazon

That actually happens a lot. Not only with Amazon. We have issues with China doing the same thing.

IDK, if June had any patients but there is a lot of effort to secure the intellectual property of a company. The innovations they came up with.
I assume under socialism there'd be no patients. No intellectual that wasn't own by the state.

The state would take the IP from the innovator. Use its resources to reduce costs. Distribute freely the benefits of the innovation to all equally, like Amazon and give none of this additional value back to the innovator themselves.

We, us have the choice to not support Amazon. To choose for ourselves who we do business with. Socialism would take this choice away. We would have to support the state for the good of all. Whether the innovator of the product was compensated for his contribution or not.

 

[Nakosis]

I still buy on Amazon when prices are better.
But many things on Amazon can be bought
directly from manufacturers at better pricing.

Still there is the Amazon distribution system. They are building a distribution hub about 1/2 a mile from my house. I already get same day delivery on many items for free. Saving my time and money if at a slightly higher price for the product.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whilst I sympathise greatly with the far left, I'm going to have to side with @Revoltingest on this one. The most ironic thing is that capitalism has created the illusion that political and economic systems are almost commodities on sale and it is a matter of going in to a polling station and choosing them as if they could be conjured out of thin air. Politics has become an industry with political parties acting as firms producing policies and candidates and sell themselves as brands to the public in order to gain support and win elections. When, however, we are discussing a post-capitalist system, we are asking ourselves to go completely beyond this competitive marketplace of ideas and of the electoral politics of parties.

There is regrettably a fairly good case to be made that this competitive exchange of ideas that make proposals for "democratic socialism" and political pluralism possible, is incompatible with centralised economic planning that a state-driven socialism leads to. It does appear that you can't have competitive elections without a competitive marketplace and the centralisation of economic power does produce a centralisation of political power in to the hands of one party.

Whilst public opposition to Communism is deep, it was by far the most ambitious attempt to completely replace capitalism in human history and people do not seem to appreciate that the Soviets were practically re-inventing the wheel in terms of economic, political and social institutions. I don't agree with all the propaganda and the Cold War did lead many people to exaggerations on just how bad Communism was. But there is some sort of relationship between individual liberty and the growing power of the state that the left has consistently failed to address and buried it's head in the sand.

That being said, Communist Parties in the UK and the US never seem to get more than 0.1%-0.5% of the votes in national elections since at least the middle of the last century. Communism isn't an imminent threat and even the leftward shift today with Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn hasn't led these parties to become more mainstream. The right has grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Communism and Socialism today, but they are not completely wrong in pointing to a long and uncomfortable history.

I have to agree capitalism's time is quickly coming to an end. Capitalism, Communism, socialism, everything we currently understand and practice through models of industry is being rendered obsolete by technology.
Truly we need something new to meet the needs and demands of a new world with vastly new technology.

 

[Nakosis]

I also avoid Amazon like the plague. In my case the catalyst was the way it kept trying to trick me into signing up for a "free" trial of Prime - which then converts into a monthly fee forever, unless you find your way, laboriously, through the small print, to the tiny back-door to cancel it. I got tricked into it once, spent half an hour trying to cancel it and vowed not to fall for it again. It's a filthy sort of scammy behaviour for a major corporation.

Plus the knowledge that one is financing vanity trips into space aboard Bell End One, the most penis-shaped spacecraft of all time:

So yeah, count me as an Amazon refusenik.

And a circumcised penis at that.

 

[Nakosis]

I have to agree capitalism's time is quickly coming to an end. Capitalism, Communism, socialism, everything we currently understand and practice through models of industry is being rendered obsolete by technology.
Truly we need something new to meet the needs and demands of a new world with vastly new technology.

Capitalism, giving birth to the golden age of utopianism.

 

[PureX]

This is "overall" how capitalism works as well

No, it's not at all. And the reason it's not is that we no longer live in a free market economy. In today's world, the consumers have to buy what the producers produce, to live, and all the producers know it. So they no longer have to deal with the threat of our refusing to trade. And none of them want to sell more or better products for a lesser price. In fact, they want to sell fewer, cheaper (to produce) products for as high a price as the buyers can afford to pay. ALL of them. So this silly idea that they are going to compete with each other by cutting prices and increasing value is a fantasy. It's not happening, and it's not going to. Because NONE of the producers want to be in that situation. And they have all the control.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Capitalism, giving birth to the golden age of utopianism.

It looks more like it's technology that had it's roots laid long ago, like computers and ARPANET.

 

[Nakosis]

No, it's not at all. And the reason it's not is that we no longer life in a free market economy. In today's world, the consumers have to buy what the producers produce, to live, and all the producers know it. So they no longer have to deal with the threat of our refusing to trade. And none of them want to sell more or better products for a lesser price. In fact, they want to sell fewer, cheaper (to produce) products for as high a price as the buyers can afford to pay. ALL of them. So this silly idea that they are going to compete with each other by cutting prices and increasing value is a fantasy. It's not happening, and it's not going to. Because NONE of the producers want to be in that situation. And they have all the control.

You keep repeating this but it doesn't square with the reality of my experience.
Maybe I just have a greater control over my needs than most.

 

[PureX]

As long as it has government oversight, it can work. Unfettered capitalism totally sucks.

Yes, but that puts government in the position of protecting us from our own toxic economic system. Why not just change the economic system so that the government doesn't have to keep protecting us from it? That's what socialism is all about: changing the system so that everyone gets the power to protect themselves. Labor gets a say in how they are treated and compensated. The investor gets say in how they profit from their investment. The consumer gets a say in the kinds, quality, and value of the goods and services being produced, and the community gets a say in how the commercial enterprise effects it's collective well-being.