this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
442 points (76.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43796 readers
730 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a simplistic, solipsistic, history-blind take! Do you have no knowledge of the 19th century? Arguably, before the Civil War was the prime time of truly "free markets" and pure capitalism in the US. It was also a time of drastic wealth inequality, exploitation of anyone that wasn't a white, male landowner, to say nothing of slavery. How many thousands died creating the railroads in the US? All of those millionaires like Carnegie, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockerfeller, all made their money on the backs and deaths of poor people.
Prior to FDR and the New Deal, we'd have Panics, where there'd be massive bank failures about every 20-30 years because of unfettered capitalism. And, just like the Great Recession, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. It was the New Deal and the FDIC that stopped the cycle.
Workers rights are antithetical to capitalism. Triangles Shirtwaist Factory Fire, children in the coal mines in Appalachia, coolie labor building the railroads.
We are not "wealthier, healthier, and happier" because of capitalism. It was the New Deal that helped shape the world the US has now, for which conservativism has been chipping away since Nixon. Socialistic practices like labor unions, collective bargaining, etc., brought wealth and stability, and created the massive middle-class that we have now. There had been no real middle-class before that, historically, just the rich and the poor. FDIC stopped the Panics; labor unions and collective bargaining brought wealth and education the working class, thus elevating and creating the massive middle-class we have now. Prior to the Great Depression, life was pretty awful and hard if you weren't rich in the US.
I'm not shitting on capitalism, but it needs the limitations that socialism brings to keep it in check, to keep it accountable, and not run roughshod over minorities, women, and children.
Also, scientific advancements actually came a lot from war, sad to say. The exponential growth of computers, GPS, obviously nuclear technology, a lot of medicine and medical procedures (thanks MASH units in Korea!) all came out of war. As for later 20th century advancements? All funded by the government. I'd suggest reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson's book, Accessory to War.
So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.
The US government did not produce all the technologies. Many of them are from private companies. Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.
What? Do you have only a black/white mentality? Of course not. We have a mixed system, as does almost the rest of the world that isn't a dictatorship. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there's a compelling argument that one really can't exist without the other.
Yes, that's called socialism. The government levies taxes from its people, then the government redistributes the wealth, that's the very definition of socialism.
We have a mixed system. But we are capitalistic leaning are we not? Being capitalist or socialist are not discrete choices, but a continuous scale. I agree with you on that.
Btw the 1929 great crash was facilitate and exacerbated by lax Federal Reserve control of money issuance and the drastic tightening after the crash. This is actually an argument against centralized money.
Well a joint stock company also does that. It engages in production. It does redistribute wealth. For a long time, public services e.g. firefighting, were provided by private entities. Is it socialism? I don't think so. It has to involve coercion, say, via monopoly of violence to be socialism as it is a form of governing.
I'd suggest you look up the Panics of the 19th century.
You obviously don't understand what socialism means. Socialism, by its definition, means involving government, be it local or federal. So, a private company is not socialism, a private fire fighting brigade is not socialism.