[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 4 KB, 225x225, index.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13614198 No.13614198[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's wrong with capitalism?

>> No.13614201
File: 67 KB, 700x424, adamsmith.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13614201

>>13614198
Nothing.

>> No.13614208

workers can't be CEOs

>> No.13614223

>>13614198

Grossly disproportionate gap between extremely wealthy and everyone else. As far as ideologies go, as someone once said, "It's the best of the worst"

>> No.13614242

>>13614208
Which is obviously bullshit.

If you reformed capitalism you would have CEOs who actually did work their way to the top.

You actually do right now, it’s just a too small percentage :3

But your statement is false

>> No.13614261

>>13614198
If you are not anthropocentric then nothing

>> No.13614290

>>13614198
It's completely out of control and we are integrated into the system's logic rather than vice versa. But it's subordinated to the technological society - see Technological System by Jacques Ellul my friend

>> No.13614295

>>13614198
it can't be controlled by a tyrant

>> No.13614300

It touts making money as the highest virtue, to the point that everything can be dropped if you can squeeze extra pennies by letting go of your morals. Man was not meant to work like a robot. I'm not a beast of burden fuckers.

>> No.13614308

not /lit/ related

>> No.13614313

It created basedboys and thots.

>> No.13614340

>>13614201
Which is why loving something to the point you’ll die for it is important.

>> No.13614940

>>13614300
No it doesn't you fucking faggot it doesn't say anything anywhere about being an immoral person for personal gain. That's human intervention

>> No.13614942

>>13614198
It created pop sci and geek culture. Arab communists are based and red pilled. Also fuck Jews and Macdonald’s.

>> No.13614944

>>13614198
Not much, the problems lie in the complete inability of liberal democracy to control the more unsavoury aspects of human greed.

>> No.13614976

It don't necessairly solve real problems it just does whatever makes money.

>> No.13614987

>>13614198
It kills culture.
>That which sells is "successful", and more is made of it
>That which doesn't sell, or sells LESS, is a "failure", and it ceases to be made
>The dumbest things are the easiest to consume, so they sell the most.
>Poetry dies, and we get the Emoji Movie/Lil Pump/endless cop shows

>> No.13614993

The set of human needs is not coextensive with the set of profit sources.

For instance healthcare. Under a capitalist schema it would make more sense to not cure a disease in a single go, but to sell a gradual step by step treatment of it. Capitalist healthcare is notoriously under-performant, as we see in the US. Similar can be said of public infrastructure and education.

Profit often becomes its own game, following its own rules independently of social need.

>> No.13614996
File: 112 KB, 900x1150, __despero___by_suzzan_blac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13614996

The problem with capitalism is that there is nothing wrong with it. It is superior in every way to every form of human organisation so far. The problem is that it excludes all possibility of an escape.

>> No.13615000

>>13614198

scale

the worth of value to scale

individual
objects
legal persons including corporations
governments

units of measure

life and death

>> No.13615006

>>13614198
endless Advertisements to buy buy buy!, they make me suicidal.

>> No.13615008
File: 143 KB, 960x960, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13615008

>>13614198

>> No.13615011

I live under it and i'm not rich. That's it.

>> No.13615015

>>13614987
>including lil pump in that list
yikes

>> No.13615018

>>13614198
Rent seeking and market failures. If you can keep on top of these then there's nothing wrong with capitalism, best ideology.

>> No.13615054

>>13614940
>it doesn't say anything anywhere
But it implies it, moron

>> No.13615058
File: 175 KB, 1080x846, ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13615058

>>13615008
5th option: become an underground anti-technology terrorist

>> No.13615061

>>13614223
>Grossly disproportionate gap between extremely wealthy and everyone else
Other than 'that makes me jealous', I have never heard an argument as to why that is necessarily a bad thing.

I'd rather live in a society where I have $20/year while the rich have $100/year, than a society where I'd have $10 and the rich $25/year, even though the wealth gap is twice as large in the first example.

>> No.13615064

>>13614300
>I'm not a beast of burden fuckers.
Then be glad that most jobs nowadays involve sitting in front of the computer while browsing Facebook, you lazy bum.

>> No.13615065

>>13614198
Unregulated capitalism has no regard for the nation, the country and the people within.
It is destructive and needs to be controlled in order to coexist with a healthy society.

>> No.13615069

>>13614996
>The problem is that it excludes all possibility of an escape.
It is much easier to get rich enough to just do your own thing in a capitalist society. Try doing that in North Korea...

>> No.13615072

>>13615065

Incredibly stupid post.

>> No.13615076

>>13615072
Not an argument.

>> No.13615088

>>13615061
Oh don't be daft. It's not just that it "makes me jealous." When a small fraction of the population has more wealth than the vast majority combined, it creates all kind of power imbalances. It makes the situation essentially neo-feudal which I would presume goes against certain accepted social values. It's a big mystery why someone who is wealthier than some countries could distort things.

>> No.13615107

where is my billion

>> No.13615150

>>13614201
>Nothing
Technically speaking this. Croney-capitalism and consumerism are the real issues. When a society starts to revolve around producing and consuming goods as a culture, then you're in trouble.
>>13614242
I mean, in America at least, back in the day the workers could become the CEO's, and many enterprises began humbly. It's all just too advanced that the system is out of control.
It's certainly an inherent danger of capitalism, but not something that's unavoidable.

>> No.13615158

>>13614987
I would agree that it tends to kill culture, but I think if culture is strong then capitalism can help enhance it, at least to some extent.
But certainly the love of culture and preservation of one's society must always remain greater than the love of capital. I think this is the main issue. But how to solve it?

>> No.13615160

>>13615069
98iq post here... being "rich enough to just do your own thing" will not change the fact that """your own thing""" will still exist within a framework of technocapital

>> No.13615169

>>13615065
I agree. I think it's also important to produce people which value their society and culture, in addition to mitigating exorbitant accrual of capital. That way, even the top echelon is grounded in wanting to enhance and preserve their society. A society of people which love and wish to protect their culture.
I find it hard to imagine ways of doing this however. My only solution is a great deal of homogeneity and building structural success, i.e. happy individuals, families, communities, all the way up the chain.
Very utopian, and therefore very difficult.

>> No.13615201

>>13615150
Consumerism and crony capitalism seem to be inevitable results of capitalism though.
Work is considered a disutility by economists, meaning that for the overwhelming amount of people, working is not a pleasant experience in itself. Therefore the only positive of work is the check you get at the end of the week. The check you get is then only good for, beyond providing the basics of shelter and food, consuming products. The entire logic of people spending most of their waking hours involved in something they'd rather not do implies that the consumption is what makes it worthwhile.
As for crony capitalism, capitalism is all about competition. That's supposed to be its strength. But competitions have winners and losers, and in capitalism, the winners can eat the losers and become bigger. As that happens, economies of scale result and bigger firms gain advantages over smaller ones just starting out. This makes the barrier to entry higher and leads to oligopoly, where few firms dominate most of a market. From that point they can easily coordinate to price fix.
This natural process of concentration of power leads to concentration of wealth and concentration of wealth translates to persuasive influence which can be used on politicians to create favorable policies for that class. There will of course be cycles of uprisings from the commoners calling for fairer laws, such as anti-trust/competition laws, but so long as few control many in the economy, they will always find a way to elbow in what they want into law with money.

>> No.13615213

>>13614198
can't deal well with externalities so humanity is slowly cooking itself to death just to boost quarterly profits

>> No.13615265

>>13614993
You ever read that goldman sachs report about gene therapy? "The genome revolution" its exactly the sort of shit you're talking about.

>> No.13615272

>>13614198

Humanity is unworthy of it.

>> No.13615273

>>13614198
It makes money God.

>> No.13615275

>>13614198
it doesn't account for commons or externalities

>> No.13615286

the only thing wrong with capitalism is how some corporations start choking competition by using the government as a bat to hit them with

>> No.13615369

>>13614198
Most people are not involved in a meaningful way, their jobs are to increase the capital of someone else and they use their capital to be consumers or give it to middle men through debt or investments which primarily serves to increase other peoples capital. Most capitalists are just consumerist larping, the system is unbalanced so capitalism fails and concentrates the money.

It is flawed like any other pure system.

>> No.13615503

>>13615201
I think the true point of contention is consumerism. There was briefly a point, perhaps even multiple points, in the west where we struck a decent balance between work and leisure. Productivity was so good that there was a sudden increase in leisure time. We quickly surpassed this however, as business owners realized this increase in leisure could spell a new set of working hours. The hours people work today are not reflectivetive of their quality of life, they are reflective of profit margins for companies, investors, boards and executive officials. All of this is propped up by the false neccesitiws of capitalism. Leisure has been erroneously but purposefully conflated with consumption, even worse, over consumption. One need not purchase or spend excessively to enjoy a day off, in fact, more socially and culturally sound pursuits, such as time with family and friends in natural settings, or time of self improvement and investment, would be better spent than time of consumption of meaningless goods. A system has been devised whereby the individual has a belief that things, be they material or immaterial, such as novelty goods or television shows, will fulfill them, that consumption will satisfy, when it never does.
A system where people work to produce goods, so they can earn a wage to consume goods, which then necessitates the production of further goods which beg to be consumed, so on so forth.
Capitalism, when successfully tempered by sound, wholesome, traditional values, is no threat. But people's have learned to harness the base and selfish nature of man to the machine of consumption. The envelope continues to be pushed, the decay grows, and no one does much to stop it, myself included by the way. This is not neccesarily an inevitable outcome, but is the one we currently live with, and it is hell.
I think we can escape it and prevent it. But the effort it would require is nearly impossible to muster, especially in our current predicament.

>> No.13615508

>>13614940
Race to the bottom dumb fuck

>> No.13615528

>>13615369
Is any non-pure system not inherently hypocritical?

>> No.13615564

HOW DOES ONE EFFECTIVELY RETAIN AND NURTURE THE PURITY OF GOOD IDEALS? IS IT IMPOSSIBLE? ARE WE DOOMED TO FAIL?

>> No.13615567
File: 100 KB, 1484x1159, IMG_2246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13615567

The workforce produces the product, manages the company, advertises the product, sells the product, hires more workers, manages the finances, and does everything to produce the company's revenue, yet the owners/shareholders keep the profits. Even though the shareholders and CEOs contribute almost nothing of value to the company (at least nothing that couldn't have been done by the workforce) they nevertheless get to keep all of the profits.

This on its face seems to be enough to reject capitalism, however there are more problems with it. Capitalism through "competition" encourages mistreatment of workers and immoral conduct. For example, if a company can relocate somewhere where workers have no rights and can pay people 2 cents an hour for longer work hours than is allowed in more progressive countries, they will do that. If a company can provide cheaper or better services at the cost of damaging the environment, they will do that. In both cases companies who take a moral stance against those things will be outcompeted and will go out of business. Thus capitalism encourages people to do whatever they can to make profit, regardless of what is right.

Secondly corporations have a LOT of money and therefore power. Through lobbying and donating they can influence politics in a way that benefits them. This is why we have the oil wars and phenomena like pic related. Corporations will push for tax cuts and less regulation and lower wages so that they can make more money for shareholders. That's what it all comes down to: money for shareholders.

Corporate power doesn't extend only into the realm of politics. In fact our culture, our media, our art, our films, our social views, and especially our political views are entirely suffused with corporate messaging and narratives. If you don't believe me, check out America; all of their major media outlets are owned by four big companies, so it's no wonder they all push the same centrist capitalist narrative.

>> No.13615568

not lit

>> No.13615569

>>13615065
/thread

>> No.13615588

>>13615528
Why would it be hypocritical? Most if not all economic systems in use are mixed systems.

>> No.13615603

Capitalism as a director of life is a blind mad demiurge. It's resource allocation is completely orthogonal to common human well-being. It might be actually efficient to the needs of small elites, but it's hard to tell.

For example, in the USA heartland is facing continuing dilapidation and exodus to a small number of super cities e.g NY, LA, SF. Housing prices are also skyrocketing as millions of people try to cram into these hive metro areas. Why? It's completely unnecessary. America has massive space. Why not have successful hubs of tech and commerce decentralized around the midlands cities? Not just Chicagos like it used to be, but Madisons and revitalized Clevelands? Or even make new cities.

>> No.13615617

>>13614198
Capital's logic is Hegel's negative infinity.

>> No.13615633

>>13614208
CEOs are absolutely nothing compared to shareholders

>> No.13615647

According to Marxist thought, aren’t CEOs exploited just as much as workers?

>> No.13615693

>The relation of people who merely sell commodities is that they exchange their own labour objectified in different use-values. However, the sale and purchase of labour-power, as the constant result of the capitalist process of production, implies that the worker must constantly buy back a portion of his own produce in exchange for his living labour. This dispels the illusion that we are concerned here merely with relations between commodity owenrs. This constant sale and purchase of labour-power, and the constant entrance of the commodity produced by the worker himself as buyer of his labour-power and as constant capital, appear merely as forms which mediate his subjugation by capital. Living labour is no more than the means of maintaining and increasing the objective labour and making it independent of him. This form of mediation is intrinsic to this mode of production. It perpetuates the relation between capital as the buyer and the worker as the seller of labour.

>Hence the rule of the capitalist over the worker is the rule of things over man, of dead labour over the living, of the product over the producer. For the commodities that become the instruments of rule over the workers (merely as the instruments of the rule of capital itself) are mere consequences of the process of production; there are its products. Thus at the level of material production, of the life-process in the realm of the social—for that is what the process of production is—we find the same situation that we find in religion at the ideological level, namely the inversion of subject into object and vice versa. Viewed historically this inversion is the indispensable transition without which wealth as such, i.e. the relentless productive forces of social labour, which alone can form the material base of a free human society, could not possibly be created by force at the expense of the majority. This antagonistic stage cannot be avoided, any more than it is possible for man to avoid the stage in which his spiritual energies are given a religious definition as powers independent of himself. What we are confronted by here is the alienaton [Entfremdung] of man from his own labour.

>> No.13615843

>>13614198
Surplus value extraction by individuals that don't reinvest in their own national economy and instead hoard it, buy luxury goods or reinvest in foreign countries.

>> No.13615931

>>13615647
If they aren't Capitalists themselves (which they often are in the company they are managing no less) and if their pay doesn't reflect the amount of work they do (which is often not the case at all) then yes it is simply a managerial work that can be exploited and would be preserved in a socialist society.

>> No.13615991

>>13614940
Imagine being this much of a dumb fuck.

>> No.13616005

>>13614198
>What's wrong with capitalism?
It is destructive in all senses. It destroys culture and the people live by those cultures. It devalues the things that we as humans once cared. It reveals the shadow of man. In order to get bigger and make more revenue he strives to do anything from fraud to attempts to kill people. It needs to be stoped. But the problem is which philosophy we are going to build upon world. Actually capitalism is the one of the easiest way to enhance our technology but it is taking away our soul as it enables us to develop. That is my concern. If you dont give a fuck about multi culturalism and human values in fact you should go try to help this order to live longer.

>> No.13616025

>>13614198
Get rid of usury and you get rid of >50% of the problems.
Markets, personal property, and trade are mostly beneficial, and at the very least survivable. Debt-fueled, rapacious finance capitalism is not.

>> No.13616038

>>13615503
I’m with you anon, it does seem it was better in the past. As opposed to popular belief, it may be because of progressive tax policies that Marx would have employed that are causing everyone to be obsessed with the number value of the money and not how it is created or where it comes from. :3

>> No.13616055

>>13615065
this argument requires you to justify the notion that a nation/country is the only healthy way to organise a society. IMO a global liberal capitalist economy would be the best system, but for humanity's evolutionary tribalist tendencies forcing the need for an us/them and a national identity.

>> No.13616062

>>13615150
conspicuous consumerism specifically is actually a good thing though - status goods like yachts and designer clothes provide a strong social incentive for people to spend and stimulate the economy where they otherwise would save and continue to amass capital.

>> No.13616080
File: 29 KB, 419x400, Trump Picardía.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13616080

>>13615150
>Croney-capitalism and consumerism are the real issues
le verb noun also no, consumption is fucking awesome and not consuming sucks

>>13615503
Only reactionaries are against "consumerism", from le classical liberals to Hitler, to mask declining living standards as a virtue. The truth is "leisure time" never ever increased because of "productivity" growth, it was always legislated historically. When unions decided to fight for "higher" wages instead of shorter work days things started going bad.

>>13615647
Well since most aren't even really dependent upon a wage and are just manipulating the public and shareholders expectations, no.

>>13616025
Dude interest rates are literally negative in some parts of the world already. You'll still be whining when interest rates are negative.

>>13616062
>conspicuous consumerism specifically is actually a good thing though
No it's not, there's no need to incentivize saving cash hoards or digging up gold to store in vaults but encouraging being a retard instead of investment in socially useful activities is dumb