Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work together for the benefit of all."—John Maynard Keynes
Perfectly fine for a boardroom to approve sending a low quality version of their baby formula to countries with low regulations and better quality to countries with more regulations. If the babies want the higher quality kind they should move to a better country!
If you kill a poor person. All murder is a crime if the victim is rich.
And unfortunately, some weapons only work on the power. Like insurance hoops and red tape to delay or deny necessary health care.
You're definitely right 👍
One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.
Genocide of working class Americans.
Yep. For-profit private insurance is just class eugenics on a long timeline.
America isn't as racist as it once was, but it has become a de facto caste system.
Fucking nailed it
"DoN't CaLl ThIs WoRk, ThIs IsN't REAL WoRk"
We're going to become Brazil (the movie)
still haven't seen that movie.
Mr Buttle, I’m here to install your new ducts!
Tuttle!
Or pushing buttons thousands of miles away.
What happens in communism?
Let us take medicine as an example:
Higher doctor to patient ratio, better life expectancy for countries income level. Doctors in Cuba go door to door for routine checkups.
Cuba life expectancy is comparable to US life expectancy and has a hard time acquiring sterile needles due to the blockade if that gives you an idea
Interesting, that’s pretty cool, never knew that about Cuba. Is that to ensure a workable labor force? Whereas, the US has a significantly larger (30x) population. Therefore, the labor force maybe isn’t as cared about or needed to such a degree?
I believe I read schooling there is free, so more doctors per capita is not limited by how rich your family is
It is because they care about the population more than they care about profits, both for moral reasons and because the whole mandate of socialism is prioritizing democracy (and therefore the needs of your constituency) over capitalism
Rather than Capital having supremacy over humanity, humans have supremacy over Capital. Capital is much like a dark god, it's will is guessed at by Capitalists, and those best capable of serving its alien will are the ones that succeed in the anarchy of the Market. Over time, these priests of Capital become fewer in number and greater in power.
Communism flips this on its head. By focusing on public ownership, central planning, and taking advantage of the productive forces previously built up via markets, humanity can bend Capital to its will. We have seen this in AES states, where healthcare is cheaper and yet high quality, literacy rates skyrocket, and production runs on plans and decision making for the whole of society.
I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you want to take a look.
By what mechanism does elimination of "death by paperwork" ensured in this?
Ensured? None. Incentivized? By focusing on eliminating the profit motive and fulfilling the will of the whole of society, there is a much larger emphasis on meeting the needs of the most impoverished and destitute.
And how exactly is "death by paperwork" incentivized in capitalist theory?
Because killing people through neglect can improve the efficiency of your workforce
Source ?
One of the most basic economic arguments of Marx's Capital is that 1) firms compete for higher profit margins 2) it is easiest to reduce wages in order to increase margins 3) you only have to pay workers enough that they're able to, as a whole, maintain your workforce (the available workforce in general can shrink though, especially as automation shrinks the needed size of the workforce)
Throw in some accumulation by disposession theory(the need to proletarianize the population, separating them from ownership of their own means of subsistence) in order for capitalism to function, and you have good old social murder, the end result of a system designed for efficient accumulation without consideration for human suffering outside the practical consideration of stability.
Socialism, which is designed to manage the needs of a population through democratic processes, does not have this issue, except in the context of fighting capitalism where accumulation needs to be prioritized to some extent, in order to defend their social project from covert and overt hostility by existing capitalist powers.
I've cited Capital, you only really need the first dozen or so chapters to understand the primary argument. Marx provides detailed figures to cite his arguments. I would also suggest reading about accumulation by dispossession/primitive accumulation, social murder, and siege socialism.
There is one very basic problem with the source here: Marx is not a capitalist, and,
Marxist interpretation of capitalist theory ≠ capitalist theory.
Sure, but it is incentivized by capitalism as a real system that exists and is studied. It doesn't have to exist in capitalist theory for it to be a real phenomenon that has be empirically proven.
if you had to pick one and reject the other, which one of the following would rather you pick :
The former option. Why, would you pick the latter option?
Yes.
At their heart, both capitalism and marxism are ideologies describing how things "ought to be." Proponents of either of them seek to influence political decision making around economic decisions, but neither is/was/will be reality.
Capitalism postulates that all capital ought to be privately owned and working in individual interest, while communism postulates that bulk of capital ought to be institutionally owned but working for public interest.
Capitalists believe that capital is most efficiently allocated (returns most value) when its owner spends it for his own benefit, rather than spending it on benefit of others, and that growth of any economy is maximum when capital is allocated most efficiently.
Communists dismiss this by pointing out that inequal access to capital causes internal problems in society, which ultimately culminates to violence aiming to change the capital allocation system into more equal one.
Communism predicts the end of capitalism, while later flavours of capitalism do the same for communism.
At their heart, both capitalism and marxism are ideologies describing how things “ought to be.” Proponents of either of them seek to influence political decision making around economic decisions, but neither is/was/will be reality.
No, Marxism does not just describe things as they ought to be. It's main aspects are:
Anthropological: a methodology for understanding how capitalism happens and how it changes to suit changing conditions (many of which it brings about)
Scientific: a process based ideology for developing an understanding of our local conditions and our ability to change them through sociological investigation, mediated through democratic process
The political program extends from an understanding of those two aspects, and is very variable, because the programs are applied to the local conditions of their environments.
Capitalism postulates that all capital ought to be privately owned and working in individual interest,
No, that strain of bourgeois thought died out as a ruling ideology hundreds of years ago, when state intervention in some failed ventures if the west indies trading company demonstrated that it is more profitable for capitalism to maintain a strong state to protect profits.
Communists dismiss this by pointing out that inequal access to capital causes internal problems in society,
I mean yeah but that's not the main thing. The main thing that Marxists believe is that as capitalism moves into its monopoly stage, it ceases to be a historically progressive force (in opposition to feudalism) and it starts to be fettered by its own issues, just like feudalism was.
Marxists believe that as production becomes socialized and planned, capitalist control makes these socialized production processes inefficient and ultimately leads to a cycle of crises.
At their heart, both capitalism and marxism are ideologies describing how things “ought to be.” Proponents of either of them seek to influence political decision making around economic decisions, but neither is/was/will be reality.
No, Marxism does not just describe things as they ought to be. It's main aspects are:
Anthropological: a methodology for understanding how capitalism happens and how it changes to suit changing conditions (many of which it brings about)
Scientific: a process based ideology for developing an understanding of our local conditions and our ability to change them through sociological investigation, mediated through democratic process
The political program extends from an understanding of those two aspects, and is very variable, because the programs are applied to the local conditions of their environments.
You describe science as "a process based ideology" with an aim. Science is seldom described as an ideology. What is your source here? Or, if this is an original idea, can you expand upon what your concept of science as such, is?
There are issues with the other "aspects" of Marxism you briefed above; most salient one being the attempt to infer principles of economics from anthropology (which isn't a particularly robust academic field by itself, devoid of any power to make good predictions in its own field, let alone in others), but I'd avoid opening that at the moment as considerations of "what science is" run deeper.
Capitalism postulates that all capital ought to be privately owned and working in individual interest,
No, that strain of bourgeois thought died out as a ruling ideology hundreds of years ago, when state intervention in some failed ventures if the west indies trading company demonstrated that it is more profitable for capitalism to maintain a strong state to protect profits.
Source, please; and unambiguously capitalist one?
Communists dismiss this by pointing out that inequal access to capital causes internal problems in society,
I mean yeah but that's not the main thing. The main thing that Marxists believe is that as capitalism moves into its monopoly stage, it ceases to be a historically progressive force (in opposition to feudalism) and it starts to be fettered by its own issues, just like feudalism was.
Marxists believe that as production becomes socialized and planned, capitalist control makes these socialized production processes inefficient and ultimately leads to a cycle of crises.
Criticism of monopoly is not a criticism of capitalism. In fact, capitalist theory itself doesn't view monopoly as a good condition. Capitalism prescribes competition and open market - for both buyer and seller sides.
What safegaurds does Marxism/Communism has to prevent monopoly?
Beats me, I'm not a communist.
My comment isn’t even troll. Just wondering in a communist country, do they even help their most health system burdensome people? I don’t know. Canada now is trying to pressure assisted suicide on them. I think the UK is now trying that too. I know that Australia’s healthcare system is pretty good and they’ll even help those who aren’t even citizens. I’d say Australia is pretty capitalist, but have a really good system by the looks of it. Or does this meme just mean US capitalism? I’d be curious to know what it’s like for the extremely ill and poor people in Venezuela, China, Russia, etc. Do they actually get help?
The "pressuring suicide n them" is not factual stats. It is misinformation. Of course you will have an outlier doctor who gives terrible advice, but doctors will do their best for treatment (physical/mental) to help people. A dying patient with severe pain was always given palletive care options, and now there is an extra option. My friends dad had incurable cancer, and constant suffering, and given a month at most. He asks for MAID because he said why would I want 4 weeks more pain/suffering when I can choose my own ending.
It definitely counts :::
