I don’t disagree with this. I also think the entire premise of the OP was that somehow capitalism has better outcomes on average than lets say Democratic Socialism. There is lots of actual real world data that disproves that. Not to mention imagine what the US has done to life expectancy in the dozens of countries they have wrecked in the last 70 years.
You mean shithole countries?
3 Likes
Look at that link and there is a pretty clear correlation between the more socialist countries and life expectancy. The vast majority of the top 25 are Bernie Bro nations.
That capitalism created. I’m not sure you can ignore the insanely horrible outcomes on the 3rd world by the rich trying to get richer in the worst capitalist offender countries.
1 Like
I agree. It would be odd if there wasn’t. I’m not defending the US. Quite the opposite. I’m saying it’s inclusion in the discussion harms the quality of the discussion.
Clearly the longer the bootstraps the shorter the lifespan.
1 Like
If you exclude the US my points remain the same though. Correlating longer life expectancy with capitalism is completely absurd. Frankly the 3rd world is more capitalistic overall (in the sense of zero regulation, rampant corruption and basically zero market oversight) than the rest of the world and their outcomes are horrible. Most of the first world has moved away from pure capitalism and has benefited as a result.
ETA - This is even true in the United States. More regulation means no more acid rain, less pollution and clean drinking water (at least for white folks). That isn’t capitalism. It’s the opposite. It also has increased lifespans.
ETA2 - The OP has clearly never read Upton Sinclair.
1 Like
We are already doing: progressive taxation. We need to to do more of it and we need to do it better.
What’s the goal? Healthy happy lives and sustainability. Why do we like democracy? We think spreading power broadly results in better outcomes. Socialism (real distributed economic power, not party control) is the means, not the ends. It is spreading power, not doling charity. Why? Because we can’t expect charity to be doled and it’s not sustainable. Leaning towards capitalism and just saying, let’s concentrate power and then just make the powerful serve the weak doesn’t work. Spread power, and distributed power means things like worker control and structural limits (not just higher tax rates) on wealth.
Social safety nets follow from that. Expecting capital to be reigned in by weaklings is magical thinking.
2 Likes
My apologies. I’m obviously not being clear. I’m engaged in a separate discussion (maybe alone) about the bigger question. I’m not really interested in the life expectancy discussion as your point is so obviously correct.
2 Likes
And the more legit your democracy is, the closer you can get to this. To some degree you have to be appeased. But you’re still leaving something on the table which is rightfully yours. Especially as far as natural resources go, property is theft. And natural resources are the source of a lot of, if not the vast majority of wealth.
That reminds me of another bit of true socialism. Norway or Finland, don’t recall, says the oil belongs to everyone.
2 Likes
I’m not trying to talk past you. Can you give me the cliffs on what you are trying to debate? Most of my previous posts were lashing out at the absurdity of the OP not you.
A heart doesn’t really do these two posts justice. A very good summation of how democratic socialism can accomplish a lot of the things we all long for in the US on this board.
2 Likes
What is your idea? How is it more realistic or achievable than taxing the rich?
Good talk. For a time now you have been very combative in several threads. I am not interested in any fights.
I have been reading more about anti-capitalism so am interested in discussions of the main philosophical claims.
On which side? I am not well-read enough to discuss debate that anyways but I am curious. To me it seems there is no need to re-invent the wheel when other countries, like Canada and most of Europe, are 50 years ahead of the US.
A full blown abandonment of capitalism in the US isn’t happening in my lifetime. It probably isn’t happening anywhere. I realize I rail against incrementalism but I am much more concerned with what is possible both in the US and abroad than some wholesale revolution of western economic systems. I’m not saying I would mind but it is impossible. It is very clear to me the hybrid system that Europe has adopted is far superior to the US system. Whether the European system is preferable to Micro’s utopia of no property ownership is where I think the debate gets interesting. So maybe we are in alignment here.
1 Like
JT is right that this post is combative and you bowing out because he’s suddenly combative is lame.
Socialism doesn’t mean no free markets. It means worker control over the means of production. That you and others think it means an end to hot dog stands and free markets (which existed before anything like modern industrial capitalism or socialism) is your misunderstanding. It’s not a coincidence that our governments and all corporations want you to think that.
5 Likes
US propaganda begs to differ bro.
The US has more violent crime than 95% of the world. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The US has massive homeless encampments in every major city. The US has one of the worst health care systems for the median citizen in the world. But hey we have sweet TV and if you are white and/or rich it is paradise!
The US is a wreck if you aren’t in the top 25%.
2 Likes
You’ve got time flowing in the wrong direction. In 50 years they’ll catch up and have no unions, no vacations, no child care, no m4a, and will be hopping from gig to gig as it suits Amazon’s needs.
3 Likes