I’m obviously doing a poor job of making my point as I didn’t mean to suggest anything like you shouldnt be mad or you can’t make any consumption changes you want.
I’m just saying I’m more interested in the larger structural question and in figuring out what actually changes minds. That seems like the goal of anti-capitalism right?
For me I tend to change my mind when I see data that shows me my priors were incorrect. Like most people, I don’t respond well to simply being told I’m wrong. I need to see why I am wrong with evidence and a well reasoned argument.
But perhaps most important, and this goes back to my first post itt, if someone is trying to change my mind they have to engage me at MY level, not theirs.
This is where anti-capitalist fail too often in my opinion. It’s an obscure, rarely taught or discussed literature and sociological framework yet it’s advocates start every discussion as if we have obviously all read An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto by Callinicos and if we haven’t we are dumb. (I just did btw).
If we want to change minds we need to accept anti-capitialism is radical and allow people the time and space to engage it on that playing field.
No one is questioning this?
Trying to ensure we use the best solution to a problem isn’t downplaying the problem. It’s the opposite. It recognizes it’s both existential and socially structural so care and attention is obviously warranted.
Nope.
I don’t think “people are living longer and healthier” is the existential crisis we need to be worried about here.
I am always a bit confused when people point to Germany as an example of a working socialist state. The former German Democratic Republic was socialist and it failed. The Federal Republic of Germany has been capitalist and it thrived. The form of capitalism that is practice is commonly called social market economy. Yes, it has social/social-democratic/socialist elements but at its heart it is capitalism.
The it’s-always-a-mix arguments are pretty close to No True Capitalism/No True Socialism fallacies though.
Germany is far from a role model if you look at the economic reality. The social safety net has been getting weaker and social democracy has been on the decline in Germany (as well as in other European countries) for decades. The conservatives have won 8 of last 10 federal elections in Germany.
The minimum wage has been raised in January to 9.50 Euro. There is widespread poverty among retirees because pensions haven’t kept up with the cost of living. @microbet mentioned the shared board for companies with 2000+ employees. First up, that’s already a major restriction. Second, the board is split 50/50 among shareholders and employees but guess which side gets to break a tie.
Some might argue that is still better than country X but pointing to it as a socialist or even social democratic success is a mistake in my opinion.
Germany is in dire need of fixing but it’s not by abolishing the capitalist system that build its wealth but to go back to the principles that ensured a fairer share of the equity for the workers and employees.
Whenever I read those proposals for a poorly defined socialist state that trust me will not only work although it never has before, it will work better than the current capitalist system, I am reminded of this Arrested Development scene:
Capitalism has been successful at creating wealth. Now it’s a question of how to let everyone benefit from it. All the examples of successful socialist states are free market economies. So either socialism has lost its meaning or we are actually talking about the redistribution of wealth within a capitalist system (which I am absolutely in favor of).
and untold misery.
That the thing it’s not untold thought right. People have been studying this stuff for hundreds of years.
There is data to rely on. We are not forced to rely on gut instinct.
Agreed so if this is going to be a fruitful debate let’s add a sticky in the OP with some definitions. It will avoid a ton of confusion.
I am hoping to learn lots from this thread.
That’s not a feature unique to capitalism.
Sure, but we are are legion.
Not if I post more about actuarial tables.
Neither is creating wealth.
I just hope one day we can run simulations to settle this debate once and for all!
cApItAlIsM vS sOcIaLiSm
That’s already happening.
In the US capital doesn’t just get the tie breaker, it gets every seat on the board. You seem to think capital getting the tie breaker is a problem. Ok, that doesn’t mean 50% of the board isn’t more worker control than any other country in the world. It just means it’s still not enough.
The social safety net is really orthogonal to worker control and hence to socialism itself. Fascists can have a social safety net.
These debates are so tiresome for someone in the the US when the US won’t even do what has been working for 40 years in the rest of the developed world. The OP is just completely detached from reality when viewed from that lens.
Guess what, life expectancy in most of Europe is higher than the US. Europe is also more socialist. Chessmate.
US is in between Turkey and Ecuador so fuck off with these terrible OPs and the misleading nonsense.
This specific failure of the US probably has more to do with the characteristics of failing empires than the characteristics of capitalism. I think history has shown that all global/territorial empires collapse under a weight of hubris, going back long before the conceptualization of capitalism.
As I pointed out earlier. This discussion is likely to be far more fruitful if we ignore the US as an example.