Discussion Is capitalism really the source of every problem?

[Deleted member 17949]

Having to work and function to live is a large part of what makes mental problems (and other problems really) so problematic for many people.

 

[Fragile]

Can we at least agree that both systems that we are discussing are inherently utopic?

Capitalism will never regulate itself and it's completely unsustainable, both for ourselves and the world around us. There's no denying that we are seeing the bad side of capitalism in our modern society with the endless consumerism and private companies becoming literal superpowers.

Communism has shown time and time again that it leads to totalitarianism, it destroys cultures, freedom and regardless of what some people want to believe, the transition of power is never peaceful.


There are many other systems, but the reality is that it will always be a fight between individualism and collectivism, and society is not going to accept either one of them, at our core we are individualist creatures that need to live as a collective. that dichotomy is the reason why we have achieved so much and why we constantly want to destroy each other, both as groups and individuals.

 

[waived]

Communism has shown time and time again that it leads to totalitarianism, it destroys cultures, freedom and regardless of what some people want to believe, the transition of power is never peaceful.

Are you familiar with non-transitional communism?

 

[Makko]

Capitalism gives me free money so I'm pretty happy about it. It's pretty much the only thing that isn't a source of problems in my life. I guess I'm in the minority though.

 

[Fragile]

Are you familiar with non-transitional communism?

Not really. What's it about?

 

[netrezven]

Society can't exist without lies and most being exploited. Every system works this way. Capitalism, dictatorship, communism- I don't find them that different from my point of view.
One is for sure- as much as any government is taking direct action in economy or people's lives, by forcing more rules, regulating more stuff, getting more taxes, results are always the same for most people-getting poor. Most people are the majority that accept lies and supports it's sad fate. The people that go to school, get a loan for college or university, in order to be paid for making more money for someone else. And today and the near future they should be so grateful if they even get a job.
Now, not everyone has the guts to work and keep money, to risk them with investment, to live every day knowing his/her business may fail.
What matters to me is the right for a choice, that everybody can make, with their own consequences.
And when majority has made it's choice to f*ck up me or people like me or anyone I like, I will also make a choice about that.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Communism has shown time and time again that it leads to totalitarianism, it destroys cultures, freedom and regardless of what some people want to believe, the transition of power is never peaceful.

The USSR isn't an example of communism because it had nothing to do with communism as described by Marx. Again, communism is inherently anti-authoritarian and describes a society without state, money and social classes with the common ownership of the means of production. The USSR or any other self-proclaimed "communist" country on this planet doesn't even come close to this. Why do you believe communism leads to totalitarianism?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

The USSR isn't an example of communism because it had nothing to do with communism as described by Marx. Again, communism is inherently anti-authoritarian and describes a society without state, money and social classes with the common ownership of the means of production. The USSR or any other self-proclaimed "communist" country on this planet doesn't even come close to this.

Even if forcing people is not what communism is really about, it's the only way you'll ever get any large group of people to agree to it assuming they didn't before. I suppose if one were to found a completely uninhabited country and fill it only with people who are there willingly and believe in all this will it be possible.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Even if forcing people is not what communism is really about, it's the only way you'll ever get any large group of people to agree to it assuming they didn't before. I suppose if one were to found a completely uninhabited country and fill it only with people who are there willingly and believe in all this will it be possible.

That's not true. As I said myself, I'm a democratic socialist, that means I believe in reforms. There are 2 types of people that oppose socialism: wealthy people and ignorant people. Socialism is easily implemented once we're done with the class conflict because it benefits literally everyone that isn't already rich. So there wouldn't be much opposition to a democratic socialist system.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

That's not true. As I said myself, I'm a democratic socialist, that means I believe in reforms. There are 2 types of people that oppose socialism: rich people and ignorant people. Socialism is easily implemented once we're done with the class war because it benefits literally everyone that isn't already rich. So there wouldn't be much opposition to a democratic socialist system.

But what's in it for the rich people then? If they're the ones with all the power why would they all allow themselves to be thrown under the bus just because they have happen to have more? Don't get me wrong, I hate mega corporations and think more should be done to combat the worst deeds of greedy CEOs but even when they deserve it, ultimately to some people it just seems like punishing people for being happy/successful with their lives which makes some people not even want to try. Maybe that isn't a bad thing either but I'm just saying it's foolish to think that if people just keep putting their fingers in their ears and yelling only the positives of socialism then everyone's just gonna hold hands and accept it.

You're right that ignorance is another big factor but ignorance likely isn't going away any time soon. You can tell someone facts but there are a lot of people who are stubborn enough that facts won't work on them. What to do with these people if they can't be taught, kill them? Imprison them? Shame them? Great way to make the new system seem like it's great for everyone. You can't solve willful ignorance by voting it out.

Plus people can be just as ignorant by blindly following what sounds like a good idea for an economic system just because it might benefit them more (not saying you are but in my experience that's how shallow most people's support of these ideologies come across).

 

[Fragile]

That's not true. As I said myself, I'm a democratic socialist, that means I believe in reforms. There are 2 types of people that oppose socialism: rich people and ignorant people. Socialism is easily implemented once we're done with the class conflict because it benefits literally everyone that isn't already rich. So there wouldn't be much opposition to a democratic socialist system.

There are also the people who think that the state shouldn't have that much control over people, and in a socialist system, the state absolutely needs that level of control to be established and then continue to function.

Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose socialism, I actually think that some level of it will be great for society, and I absolutely agree that the class conflict is something that we should find a solution to.
However, once we dig our noses out of theory books and the sweet promises of the future, we have to take a look around and realize that this is not something that can happen without conflict, reforms are possible in countries that are mostly homogeneous in the way they think, but in most of western society these reforms will never be accepted in a peaceful way. And with the sheer amount of corruption that exists, it is foolish to think that socialism is anything other than a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

 

[Good4Nothing]

Capitalism = competition.
Socialism = cooperation.

 

[waived]

Not really. What's it about?

There's a number of differing flavors but specifically regarding a dotp and the authoritarianism of what we'd expect from a State and other State oriented situations, non-transitionary communism, communisation, or sometimes insurrectional communism, would posit no transitional period.

However, once we dig our noses out of theory books and the sweet promises of the future, we have to take a look around and realize that this is not something that can happen without conflict, reforms are possible in countries that are mostly homogeneous in the way they think, but in most of western society these reforms will never be accepted in a peaceful way. And with the sheer amount of corruption that exists, it is foolish to think that socialism is anything other than a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

I agree. Reform is a mechanism of control that has absolutely no guarantee of continuously moving in a linear happy direction if adequate in the first place. While I wouldn't say that socialism leads to totalitarianism I think it can definitely end up being a new management of capital with about the same outcome.

 

[Fragile]

There's a number of differing flavors but specifically regarding a dotp and the authoritarianism of what we'd expect from a State and other State oriented situations, non-transitionary communism, communisation, or sometimes insurrectional communism, would posit no transitional period.

Interesting, so it will be like the sovietization of eastern europe and central asia in a way.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind about this concept, because it entails an extreme level of cohesion that has to be done in the very early stages of the revolution, and this revolution needs to be political, cultural, economic and deeply transformative in many other aspects.
However, without the backing of a large communist state, I really can't see it succeeding without a relatively large transitional period.

While I wouldn't say that socialism leads to totalitarianism I think it can definitely end up being a new management of capital with about the same outcome.

I agree, socialism doesn't necessarily means totalitarianism, the way I see it, it could work without much issues in an already industrialized and prosperous nation without much corruption index. However, what would be the point in changing a system that already works in these type of nations?

But I was specifically referring to the current situation of the Americas, and we could also consider African and middle eastern nations. Here corruption and class conflicts are deeply rooted, to the point that any serious attempt at establishing any form of socialism would be an open invitation for a tyrannical dictator to take over, like we've seen it happen so many times.

 

[waived]

Interesting, so it will be like the sovietization of eastern europe and central asia in a way.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind about this concept, because it entails an extreme level of cohesion that has to be done in the very early stages of the revolution, and this revolution needs to be political, cultural, economic and deeply transformative in many other aspects.
However, without the backing of a large communist state, I really can't see it succeeding without a relatively large transitional period.

I don't think any of these particular ideas look like sovietization although iirc at least one of the flavors would repurpose 'all power to the soviets' or 'all power to the communes' to illustrate some of their points but their conception is entirely different. It isn't prefigured or programmatical it's observations put forward that are concerned with the changes in and activity of populations during the break down of capitalist social relations and the internalizations and resulting activity that fills that void i.e. the assertion of communist social relations in the present as the force that stops the reproduction of capitalist society and which is the actual content of a diffuse revolutionary project. Iirc it was born out of a criticism of prior theory being inadequate to address the structural changes in capital (70's, the destruction of the working class as a revolutionary subject..). *As an edit, I don't think what I have as 'stops the reproduction of capitalist society' is adequate wording that would be accepted in some settings but perhaps works as a reduction here?

 

[Futile]

At the end, both capitalism and communism are based on the absurd idea that humans are "fair" and that all people start from the same spot. The only difference is that capitalism does it in its delusion of meritocracy, while communism does it in its delusion of equality.

No economic system will ever be good, the problem lies underneath

 

[reticen]

The term "capitalism" should not even be used. It is a dumb term coined by Marx to describe his illogical view on economics. It might be better to call it collectivization versus freedom.