idfk. i just replied that because i saw that the person you were talking with had stopped talking to you.
also, just so you know, from the way you’re writing, you come off really aggressive. if you want people to listen to you, try being more polite, even if you disagree with someone’s opinion.
edit: oh cool they don’t even think capitalism can be good so all you did was get people confused. thanks.
I’m far left and get it, but I also understand the controversy. In Das Kapital Marx explains how the ownership class will always push for more gains until the working class struggles to survive and the economy collapses as a whole.
On the other hand, the problem isn’t simply that industrialist greed is inevitable (though history bears this out so far) but we haven’t developed a model that successfully mitigates this problem. This isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, only that it doesn’t exist today, kind like superluminal space travel.
There are capitalists who believe it’s possible to create a well-regulated capitalist system that is resistant to corruption and the influence of money on government, but they have been in the minority since the 1980s, and since then market manipulation shenanigans like private equity have only increased. So even if it is possible, and industrialists should be motivated to preserve a status quo that allows them to stay rich and in power, we just don’t even try.
Rant: (One of the things I find fascinating is how the game industry still sees crunching as acceptable, even though retroactive studies have showed crunching consistently reduces productivity. Similarly, micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters – to prevent them from web-surfing or checking email or chatting with loved ones – costs way more than the productivity lost and workers allowed to do these things even excessively show higher mean productivity rates. And yet over-surveillance and micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters remains the common norm. This demonstrates that the management structures that are commonly used within our capitalist model don’t do what they’re supposed to do, which is maximize profits and shareholder dividends, and yet the giant crackdown we’d expect to happen for doing abuse for abuse’s sake… isn’t. It’s all just a charade to preserve a stratified social structure.)
But they do, so I’ll ask again - what are you people who think there is any value in differentiating different “kinds” of capitalism clinging on to?
idfk. i just replied that because i saw that the person you were talking with had stopped talking to you.
also, just so you know, from the way you’re writing, you come off really aggressive. if you want people to listen to you, try being more polite, even if you disagree with someone’s opinion.
edit: oh cool they don’t even think capitalism can be good so all you did was get people confused. thanks.
I’m far left and get it, but I also understand the controversy. In Das Kapital Marx explains how the ownership class will always push for more gains until the working class struggles to survive and the economy collapses as a whole.
On the other hand, the problem isn’t simply that industrialist greed is inevitable (though history bears this out so far) but we haven’t developed a model that successfully mitigates this problem. This isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, only that it doesn’t exist today, kind like superluminal space travel.
There are capitalists who believe it’s possible to create a well-regulated capitalist system that is resistant to corruption and the influence of money on government, but they have been in the minority since the 1980s, and since then market manipulation shenanigans like private equity have only increased. So even if it is possible, and industrialists should be motivated to preserve a status quo that allows them to stay rich and in power, we just don’t even try.
Rant: (One of the things I find fascinating is how the game industry still sees crunching as acceptable, even though retroactive studies have showed crunching consistently reduces productivity. Similarly, micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters – to prevent them from web-surfing or checking email or chatting with loved ones – costs way more than the productivity lost and workers allowed to do these things even excessively show higher mean productivity rates. And yet over-surveillance and micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters remains the common norm. This demonstrates that the management structures that are commonly used within our capitalist model don’t do what they’re supposed to do, which is maximize profits and shareholder dividends, and yet the giant crackdown we’d expect to happen for doing abuse for abuse’s sake… isn’t. It’s all just a charade to preserve a stratified social structure.)