this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
654 points (80.8% liked)
Showerthoughts
28953 readers
1128 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Posts must be original/unique
- Be good to others - no bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.
Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.
Pyramid schemes don't have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.
A hexagon!
They're zero sum because money is being exchanged, but the person losing money isn't getting anything in return for the exchange. Someone is just stealing from someone else (one person loses, anotber gains). No matter how many people are added to the scheme the mechanics remain the same.
An economy, be it a capitalist or communist one, involves the exchange of money but in exchange for goods and services. Both parties of the transaction gain from it.
Now, it could be argued that the wrong people gain the most from capitalism. That's another argument. But the system isn't zero sum, the way a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme is.
To all your guys huffing and puffing, I'm not passing moral judgment (here) about communism or capitalism. I'm just saying that any economic system involving trade is not zero sum the way a Ponzi-scheme is.
Except people are getting fewer goods and services while paying more money. For some, they're already at starvation wages even when working full-time and they have to dip deeply into credit just to survive.
Yet costs for the masses are increasing beyond the official inflation numbers.
You're not wrong there, but just to provide a more accurate number for what's currently happening, inflation of the cost of groceries was 11% from 2021 to 2022. It is expected to continue to be high throughout this year with an estimate between 5-10%.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/sticker-shock-grocery-store-inflation-wasnt-only-reason-food-prices-increased
I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can't really make money if you aren't making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.
Everywhere around you, you can see work that need to be done, from streets that need to be fixed or land that could be cultivated, and all those work keep undone, because nobody up the ladder would get money from it.
Generally the idea is that both parties need to benefit from any transaction if it is voluntary.
When you have to eat and the means to feed ourselves is held by few, no transaction is voluntary.
Of course it's voluntary. You choose what you buy, when you do it, how much and from whom.
If someone held you on gunpoint and told you to buy their product, that would be involuntary.
You can choose what, when, how much, and from whom, but you are still are still forced to do so. Choosing which person puts me at gunpoint doesn't make it voluntary
You can also feed yourself by growing food or hunting. Neither of those are banned, just more inconvenient and you probably have some other skills to sell and buy food instead
I can only do so on land that I purchased. Or on someone else's land I purchased the right to do so on
Then do that, or choose not to.
If I choose not to I die. I can buy the food from someone who already has it, I can buy the right to make my own food, or I can choose to starve to death
Or hunt on public land.
That costs money. I have to buy the right to hunt on public land or I go to prison for poaching
Can I interest you in CWA (Crackers With Attitude)'s Fuck The DNR?
You are forced to buy food, shelter, healthcare, a vehicle (US). You are forced therefore to have a job to pay for these things. Employers know this, and suppress wages with those together, the proverbial gun.
Generally speaking, slavery is also benefitial to both parties, you're either a slave out you get killed. While technically voluntary (because a slave can still choose stand up to the oppressor, even if it's guaranteed to fail) we don't consider slavery voluntary. We can say that in this day and age our work is voluntary, but it's debatable.
You can look to this year how "voluntary" it is when the Hollywood execs literally said they will wait for the protesters to starve so they'd get back to work. When there's such a severe power dynamic it becomes almost no different to slavery, because you, individually, can be effectively forced back to work. The only reason Hollywood protests have any chance to have impact is because they collectively oppose the oppression. The power dynamic is being balanced (or dipped in the favor of labor) by sheer number of protestors / workers.
If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.
They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.
The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.
The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.
This is true but not a necessity of capitalism. Pigouvian can put the destruction of the commons back in that box.
That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.
the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked...
Before Capitalism Humanity drove mammoths into exctintion, and that was a hunter-gatherer society.
https://www.earth.com/news/humans-drove-woolly-mammoths-to-extinction/
What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it's happening.
Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
Well... no. It never was. Even the USA is highly intrusive and protectionnist. Also, state capitalism ? In you other responses you talk about China like it's not a capitalist country. China is the main example of state capitalism.
I think you are confusing capitalism with something else.
The wikipedia article is a good start if you are interested.
Ahah ! So you just change the definition of a word to make it fit your worldview. And yes wikipedia is not a great source but it usually cover the basic stuff. I gave you the link to get you started but I see you're not interested in educating yourself about the subject.
I mean, again, you think capitalism mean limited state intervention. It does not. By definition.
I'll let you in you own world with your own words and custom definitions !
A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s