Some pro-captialism idiot: "School lunch debts were a thing when I was a kid, and we dealt with it. If you managed your money better, you wouldn't be in this situation. Giving free lunches to children now would be unfair to those of us who went hungry. "
There certainly are too many people with that general attitude. Is it unfair to all our ancestors who died of smallpox that we get vaccines when they didn’t? Is it unfair that some new surgery or medication can allow a person to walk or see or mentally function when in the past they suffered? That’s society. Each generation is supposed to try and eliminate problems for the future.
8
deleted
· 5 years ago
The main point here is not a simple then and now comparison, it's about the undeniable fact that in societies that aggregate more wealth than ever before there are more and more losers in the game who live under more and more unsufferable conditions. And that the handful super rich people successfully tell the majority of people who do quite well that the poor are after them and want shit for free that they, the middle class, needs to work hard for. The idea is to give them a glimpse of cornucopia and at the same time the very real threat to land in the gutter with just a little bit of bad luck. The insanely rich are only rich because the poor people get ever more and poorer.
I believe it was Jay Gould who was first on record in the 1890’s to say that he could easily have one half of the farmers/workers to fight/kill the other half. The quote has been paraphrased and rephrased but the overall sentiment is there. It behooves a minority in privilege to keep an overwhelming majority focused on each other for conflicts. It’s a balance. It comes in flavors- those who run the state and the state run the industry; or those who run the industry are the same who run the state. Power tends to consolidate and gather as it is easier to gain either the more of each you already have. It becomes ideological difference wether you want to motivate primarily through potential for reward or promise of punishment- and the ratio of which you administer either.
The key is that in a state where control and social welfare rest on the state or the monarch- the people have the state or monarch to blame for dissatisfaction. A democratic system of free markets where “self determinism” and “individual worth” are corner stones- most dissatisfaction in an individual life can be blamed upon that individual or their neighbors instead of the state or the powerful. You voted wrong, they voted wrong- and now a more current trend- it’s the fault of whoever didn’t vote because surely they would have voted “right” and prevented any such catastrophe. Forget that they could have just as easily added to the votes for whatever it is that makes you unhappy, or used their vote on another option which due to minority would have been essentially the same as not voting.
It all comes to control simply. Wether it’s the volume on a stereo, the ability to stream “on demand,” the thermostat or who gets to use the same bathroom as us- we all tend to want control. Control in our own lives requires control over others unless we live in isolated self sufficiency- and even then we need the control to prevent others from encroaching on that. The politicians and billionaires want to keep what they have. Why wouldn’t they? Huge houses and fine things, security and the ability to do as they please in life?
The middle class wants to keep what they have, the lower class as well, each is defending their perch from those poised close enough to make their corner of society more crowded, more competitive, and to take some of their power- their control. “Working” classes have feared immigration and freedom for at least centuries. “Immigrants taking jobs” is literally a sentiment as old as America, and even in the north abolition was met with many who feared fee slaves would mean lost wages and jobs. They’d be put even further from any hope of reaching that next step on the social latter as competition at their level increased.
But it does ultimately fall on us regardless of what system of government or economics we use. We allow others to do things because we want to do those things too. If you make a huge issue of misused sick time at work, you can’t call in sick because you are hung over from the weekend either. If we smash generational entrenched wealth- we also can’t pass wealth to our children. If we destroy “seeetheart jobs” and “nepotism” and “good guy referrals” we lose their benefit, we lose the ability to use our power to benefit our friends and family.
Someone working a fast food joint who’s stollen food from work or money from the drawer; who’s refused to answer their phone or has played Hookie from a Black Friday shift is quick to anger at the CEO who steals $2 million from their company or a congressman who takes of during a crisis for golf- but it’s the same thing, they just live on a larger scale where they CAN steal a million instead of a ten dollar bill. Them skipping work on a critical day has larger repercussions but the principals and the fact others suffer stay the same. It isn’t that we wouldn’t cause the harms they do- we simply don’t have the power to. We cause smaller harms because we have smaller power. Give the same person bigger reach and they too would cause bigger harms. It’s just a reflection of society.
Other models of governments and economics seem favorable because they often are intended to shield us from our own natures. The Capitalist/post capitalist democracy is a pure reflection of the society that creates it. It doesn’t hide the nature of men. Where other systems fail is usually in the human component. Because a state ran system is still ran by humans with power and the ability to take advantage of that for self enrichment. Really- if we finally make machines that can make machines that can think- that might be the only system of government that could “rescue” humans from our own nature- unless we as humans decide to change our nature and quit accepting the abuses of others on the grounds we aspire to one day be in their position.
There is a fundamental flaw here: namely that capitalism by its nature is not intended to work well for everyone. The entire idea of capitalism is society defines the worth of goods, services, etc- and that people receive compensation based upon the value society places on their contributions into society. It’s not so unlike the principals of Marxist communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” with the difference being that in free market capitalism the individual defines their needs and not the state, and is theoretically free to pursue the means that will allow their personal needs to be met.
In a Communist society- especially a Marxist society- those who do not contribute or are seen to contribute insufficiently to society are given reduced resources- a high ranking communist official or a hero of the state would have a lifestyle, privileges and other things the “common man” did not. You wouldn’t find the head of state in a bread line for the same food or toilet paper as everyone else. You wouldn’t find a top scientist living quite the same as a factory worker either. And while in late stage capitalism you have lunch debt or need to scrounge to find a way to pay for medical expenses- in most every communism known to earth you wouldn’t have the option of that cancer treatment or any hope of getting it at all. You’d wait your turn and die or never even be given a place in line. You wouldn’t have lunch debt but you also might not have lunch. Any “debt” may see you in a prison or in some sort of outcast state.
Now- unchecked and under regulated capitalism are huge problems. Our democracy was designed around the idea that people on average are too dumb to have direct control of world affairs beyond their own homes. That’s why we have the system of representative votes we do. The deficiencies in a system of democratic free capitalism reflect the deficiencies of humans.
And of course- a system of self determination and reward is inherently biased against those who have some handicaps or challenges compared to the “average” which would by default reduce their ability to self provide. There are huge problems in this system that we should address. That’s said- pointing out that not everyone is doing well under capitalism is a bit ignorant. That’s the nature of capitalism. Not everyone can do well. It is a competitive system meant to reward people who contribute to society. When we see hard working and constructive members of society struggling, that shows us that there has been a mistake in the law and the system. When we see people who aren’t being constructive that shows us we need to build bridges to help make them productive members of society.
Capitalism thrives in numbers. We WANT more people. We actually NEED more for capitalism to work right and scale development for the future. We need to support people because people who know they are supported and know that they will be taken care of after they’ve contributed to society and are no longer able will work with confidence for society. We support society and society supports us. That is supposed to be the deal. That is broken. We need to fix it. That is not an issue with capitalism- you’d find plenty of sick and hungry in most communism’s in history.
guest_ Word Count: 575
TLDR: Capitalism has problems, some of which are built-in and others that we need to fix.
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
No, we're actually in post-capitalism where the really rich class has found ways to stay out of responsibility entirely for good. They made everyone afraid to loose what they got because poor people would take it away. The 20 richest people in the uS "own" about a thousand fucking billion dollars. That has nothing more to do with the idea of capitalism, than rape has to do with consensual sex.
The trickle down theory is old school capitalism, and it may have worked (and probably still work) in early stages of capitalism, but it doesn't work for obscenely rich people, corporations and fund management / investment banking.
It’s sorta tricky. In simple terms- “trickle down economics” only strictly applies where private entities have control of wealth- primarily referring to reducing burdens like taxes to the wealthy or to industry so that money can instead be used to generate jobs and commerce. In systems where private individuals either do not own property, or the state controls industry and economics it doesn’t really apply directly. However- “trickle down economics” is somewhat inherent to these systems.
What I mean is this- if Amazon and Jeff don’t accumulate wealth- whatever money amazon generates is property of the state or the people. The state or the people allocate that money to expand enterprise as central or other economic planning/need dictate- to create jobs, to secure goods for the people which in turn places that wealth back into the system. So first, out of Amazons profits, the costs of running that business are removed, the cost of caring for those employees needs, then the remainder is taken to the state coffers to subsidize other business or other citizens and production.
But as Hammerhead says- in capitalism the system is inherently flawed because there is no economic control asides taxes to compel private citizens to invest back into the system. If those individuals save the money, invest it in foreign markets and labor, etc. it can’t “trickle down” back to its own communities directly.
What’s more- the concept of “trickle down economics” in its first recorded mention was used not as a theory of economics but as a term to mock certain economic policies which favored the wealthy but were branded as in the interest of all due to the “halo” spending of the rich. While there is some truth that such “halo” effects exist- it is more the case that industry has set up in that niche than that such effects have ever been a central tenant of a working economy.
Tl:dr- “trickle down economics” is primarily used as a thin justification of systems that facilitate wealth disparity to the primary benefit of the wealthy. Such concepts are both not needed and somewhat inherent to many non capitalist systems because in these systems the production of any entity is intended and generally designed to “trickle” to other individuals and industries. A state run company pays into the state- but we could argue that it would fit “trickle down” economics if a state ran company were allocated a larger retainer of generated profit or production for expansion or for worker benefit. The balance between what is used to subsidize the state and what is used to subsidize the company itself.
Broken systems that keep going prove that people love each other and will help each other endure.
Lizard oppressor would be killed the second it let its guard down so they stay out of each other’s way
TLDR: People tend to use whatever power they have to game the system because the desire for control is human nature.
TLDR: Capitalism has problems, some of which are built-in and others that we need to fix.
Lizard oppressor would be killed the second it let its guard down so they stay out of each other’s way