That's human nature. You won't get a better deal in Russia, China or any theoretical utopian civilization you dream up either. I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell isn't blaming everything on capitalism.
That's not entirely fair. The main downside Capitalism has in this discussion is that the wellbeing of the people is not even one of it's stated goals. You can argue all you like about Socialism being a failed ideology, or impossibly utopian, that's it's own conversation. But it makes the common welfare a stated goal to strive for. Capitalism does not.
Capitalism's goal is to maximize the creation wealth by allowing individuals to privately hold wealth and efficiently leverage it to produce more wealth. Currently, humans are a crucial element in the production of wealth, which has allowed labor to capture some amount of that wealth for themselves. But that's not central to Capitalism. If you can generate massive amounts of wealth and give none of it to your workforce, you've succeeded at Capitalism, even if it means the 90+% of the population who don't own much capital at all starve in the streets.
In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless, moneyless society that provides to each according to their need, and each works according to their ability. Unlike Capitalism, the elimination of the necessity of labor doesn't intrinsically cause everybody to starve. It just dwindles away the necessity of the "from each according to their ability" part.
So you can argue about what other better solutions there are, but if we're pushing towards a world with less and less need for human labor, Capitalism is flatly untenable. Capitalism's answer to human labor being optional is that the former labor class dies.
> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless
What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed, but that will never change no matter what system you dream up.
And while capitalism isn't draped in utpoian idealism, it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living.
It's not about lofty idealism. It's about central goals. Sometimes, even oftentimes, goals are failed to be met. But, when it comes time to sacrifice something, it's invariable that a side effect will be cut rather than the central goal.
Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money".
Capitalism does not have meeting basic human needs as a core goal. Capitalism's distribution of money to labor is a side effect, not a goal. It has the freedom of capital to amass capital as a core goal. Thus, if something needs to go, it's not going to be capital's ability to amass more capital.
As automation comes for more and more jobs, the demand for labor in general will fall. Capitalism, even in its most idealistic "a rising tide lifts all ships" form, does not care about those it doesn't need. If your preferred answer to "what do we do when human labor is no longer necessary" isn't "extinction", you can't rely on Capitalism as an ideology.
> The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money".
Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?
This is a reductive and ridiculous take. The real world isn’t Soc101 or a poor reading of Marx, nor is it black and white.
The irony is the best side of HN. It seems you ignored the parent's main argument, but you've found their admittedly weakest paragraph. "This is a reductive and ridiculous take" is the literal phrase that you've used at that point.
> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?
The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that are the source of that law.
What on earth are you talking about? The entire comment was a slap against “capitalism”, with regards to its treatment of workers and how “capitalist” companies act. I picked a specific bit to question GP on while also commenting on the whole post.
Do you think that’s unfair? Do you think suggesting that capitalism is just about enriching shareholders today is not reductive?
Whether the law makes small businesses less likely to survive (citation needed) is immaterial to the question.
> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?
Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small businesses or non-profit organizations indeed may have concerns other than profit. But good luck convincing shareholders in a big company that they should take the less profitable path, especially if there is competition with other companies.
Why is a non-profit or small business not capitalist? I feel like the latter, especially, is a weird stretch.
Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue.
Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?
> it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living.
This is what happens when you smoke too much of your own propaganda.
America is very much a mixed economy, and we're the so called 'leader' of the capitalistic world. If the US had been allowed to be an unchallenged capitalistic country then we'd look very much like Russia today (which is not communistic in any way), a corrupt shithole. A huge part of our success was the labor movements of the mid 1800s in which a fair number of people died in. Then later in the 1930s after unchecked capitalism brought about a horrific crash that required a massive amount of socialistic policies to bring us back from the brink and get the economy working.
The reality of these situations is far more complex than the red white and blue cheerleading we're taught in school.
I don't think you're engaging with the GP's ideas in good faith. Yes, capitalism lifts people out of poverty at an unimaginable scale, but the GP's contention is that this is only _for the moment_. According to the GP, the end state of capitalism is a sudden, drastic drop in the labor class's material conditions (which probably looks a lot like societal collapse). Your contention that "But it's good now!" is exactly the kind of logic that GP is railing against.
Do you know that slavery too was justified to be just human nature and now it's fairly niche in richer parts of the world? Your argument is essentialist, so I find it weak. And both Russia and China are capitalist countries actually.
Ok, so do you endorse slavery cause its human nature? What is your point? 50 million out of over 8 billion is much better ratio than what was in some societies based on slavery.
I think slavery is human nature. White people didn’t invent it. All cultures came up with it through various versions. But then again rape and murder is human nature too.
My point was that slavery is still a real thing even in poor countries. Hence the second link about Africa.
Why is it people like yourself simply cannot fathom that one particular economic system could be harmful to humanity? We've managed to take a critical eye at superstition, religion, propaganda, all sorts of things. But the primary means through which inequality is carried out in society? NOOOO, leave that alone. That's perfectly fine where it is.
People who align with that are profiting from capitalism.
Why is it people like yourself can not learn from history? I'm all for moving in a better healthier direction, i'm not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past. For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before.
The burden of proof is thus on those who want to destroy it, to prove they have a viable and useful alternative that will ACTUALLY make the lives of people better. Instead, what I see is a direction that is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed and misery, with only a dreamers hope that what comes afterward is any better.
> For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before.
I'd like to see some real numbers for this. Capitalism creates inequality which even the feudal eras of various countries couldn't match. Serfs enjoyed more spare time in their day than the modern full-time worker. Granted, they had their own problems to deal with, but to pretend that capitalism is the best because it's created the most inequality (i.e. someone's hit a really high score)
Capitalism enables sociopathic behavior. In fact, it rewards it. The more profit you get from something, the better you're playing capitalism. Doesn't matter if what you're selling is remotely close to what you're charging, in value. Endless growth and profit must come from somewhere. Money and resources do not just poof into the world. Money can be printed, but that has consequences.
A corporation exploiting my labor so they can profit, and shareholders giving them money with the expectation to make more back later (i.e. gambling) is not making the world any better. It's trapping people into a cycle of giving their most valuable resource -- time -- to others of its kind that wouldn't care if they died tomorrow.
I'm not sure what an alternative would be. People act like there's only 2 or 3 systems out there. That dogmatic myopia is part of what traps us in shitty systems.
Without capitalism, I could have control over my life. Why should an economic system dominate one's waking life? Businesses are not more important than individuals. They have no more right to exist than we do.
> Without capitalism, I could have control over my life.
Says who? You think people in China and Russia have more control over their life than those in the west? You've still not offered anything other than wishful thinking. You've not proposed any system to replace capitalism. Ultimately you're just offering destruction, with no vision for rebuilding other than, "I hope it gives me an easier life".
Do you think China and Russia aren't capitalistic in nature? They structure their markets very much like the West, because they end up having to do business with the West at some points.
Do you really think there isn't a better system than accepting that some other human out there is going to get more out of your work than you?
In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness and hunger. We have the means, but capitalism says "no, people must not be allowed to survive without working for others".
Why are we the only animal on Earth that pays others of its kind to survive and exist?
If capitalism cannot bring people up then its cancerous nature will naturally give way to unrest and change. Expecting me to know what that change would be, and what conditions would settle, is unreasonable.
Labor should be a choice, and you should get the vast majority of the benefit for it. Capitalism cannot offer such things. It has nothing to offer except exploitation. It rewards preying on your fellow person and justifies everything with profits. Cancer incarnate.
The problem with homeless people is not that they don't have homes, it's usually that they're mentally a wreck (very often from traumatic childhoods), which leads to addictions and a host of antisocial and self-harming behaviors. Not to mention, people who are plain mentally ill.
People who are mentally ok and who land on the streets via a series of unfortunate incidends are often back into a house and a job a year later - it's really not that hard in most developed countries.
> In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness and hunger. We have the means, but capitalism says "no, people must not be allowed to survive without working for others".
There's unemployment benefit. In the UK, that's £85 a week. There's also council housing.
Capitalism clearly does not work. It's destroying the planet, making people stupid, numb and distracted and it is very inefficient at allocating resources for anything that doesn't generate profit.
That being said, I know no better alternative, albeit I think high automation may make some solutions feasible.
Profit > everything else