I love how the person you replied to mentioned that no one is mentioning communism as an alternative, yet you’re bringing it up once again when the person you replied to isn’t forcing communism on you at all
Dictators and authoritarianism get you killed. Some capitalist countries have also have these things and, oddly enough, people also die for the same reasons. Could it be… the economic model actually isn’t the issue?
Ahhh, the old “I know nothing about what I’m talking about so I’m going to keep making things up” defense. Classic move and stunningly performed. I can tell you have practice.
The classic: I’m not going to disprove you because I cannot name one communist country that isn’t a dictatorship, but I want to sound cool nonetheless. Well done.
How’s the Che Guevara t-shirt made in a sweatshop doing?
You might want to go check about Social Democracy.
You know, like in several Scandinavian countries, the very same that keep scoring high in happinness indices and have the highest per-capita wealth in the World (most easilly beating the US).
Just because you (understandably, if you indeed were born in an ex-Communist country) have a trauma with “Communism” that doesn’t mean that “there are only two options Capitalism or Communism” isn’t a massive falacy or that Capitalism is a great way to manage a country.
That you keep doubling down just makes it seem you’re a mindless fan of Capitalism rather than an oppositor of Communism, and that kind of tribalist take is quite the simpleton approach to evaluation options for the managing of actual countries.
It really makes no logical sense to respond to criticism of Capitalism with “whatabout Communism”.
Regarding Scandinavian countries, this is a good read. Nordic countries run on a mixed economy. They aren’t just a capitalist economy, which the other person is trying to claim.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining based on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy—with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. The three Scandinavian countries are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. All the Nordic countries are however described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems.
Social democracy is a flavor of capitalism. See Norways sovereign fund. Every country in Europe is a capitalist country, the happy ones (Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland) and the less happy ones.
What you see in Scandinavia is actually a mix of both.
There is no problem with Capitalism as an ideology for Trading activities, as long as it’s secondary to the ideology used to manage people’s lives in society.
The problem is when Capitalism is the only thing used to manage everything in a country, including people’s lives in society, because its an ideology to maximize resource use and trade, which is not at all the same as maximizing quality of life (simple example: heavilly poluting industries maximize resource use but worsen quality of life) so you need people-oriented (rather than trade-oriented) ideologies to manage Society for people, something that Capitalism won’t do because it aims to maximize wealth without caring about the distribution of it or any non-monetary elements such as the Environment of people’s quality of life.
This is also an answer to your other comment on a question of mine: what I suggest instead of Communist or Capitalism as the ideology for rulling a country is a people-oriented political ideology such as Social Democracy and under it Capitalism for Trading, heavilly regulated.
Capitalism is very bad for guiding Society, but it’s pretty decent at managing Trading as long as it’s subservient to a political ideology whose aims are people focused, not money-focused.
You will notice that Capitalism worked somewhat decently up to the rise of Neoliberalism in the late 70s - Neoliberalism as the name indicates is all about removing oversight on Capitalism by any other ideology, mostly by the State removing itself from the work of Regulation (which is even anti-Democratic, since it weakens the power of the vote vs the power of money), thus making Capitalist objectives the ultimate objectives of Society and the only guiding hand be Money (with makes power distribution be extremelly uneven), and the natural result of that was that anything to do with quality of life and fairness in Society was entirelly dropped from the mainstream political discourse and it’s now it’s all about “Greed is good” and maximizing Economic outcomes quite independently of the distribution of the wealth thus created or the damaging side-effects for Society and the Environment of it.
It doesn’t matter, even a fully actualized public owned economy still requires that it estimate and compare production and capital increase so it knows 1. How much to alot for each citizen in the daily/weekly/monthly UBI, and 2. How to compare its production capacity and volume of capital to other countries who may or may not also be collectivist.
Both of these needs require the exact understanding of production increase so that it can accurately estimate the capital (capital in this sense being the amount of wealth set aside specifically for the increase in production capacity/efficiency) that allows the economy to grow. Thus they can take that information and increase the amount of dollars available to the country or it’s citizens for use or trade with other nations.
So, price fixing doesn’t exist in communism?
Love how everyone’s argument for capitalism is just ‘well communism sucks too’.
Good job regurgitating half a century’s worth of propaganda, no one mentioned communism and there’s more than just 2 ways to run q society
deleted by creator
How about making fair regulations to stop corporations from abusing capitalism instead of forcing communism on everyone?
That’s the status quo, and it’s not really working.
It doesn’t work because of corruption. The same exact reason why communism doesn’t work.
It seems like you answered your initial question!
I love how the person you replied to mentioned that no one is mentioning communism as an alternative, yet you’re bringing it up once again when the person you replied to isn’t forcing communism on you at all
I was born and have lived in a communist country. It doesn’t “suck too”, it gets you killed. Good job regurgitating garbage tired internet arguments.
Dictators and authoritarianism get you killed. Some capitalist countries have also have these things and, oddly enough, people also die for the same reasons. Could it be… the economic model actually isn’t the issue?
Except there are democratic capitalist countries, all communist countries are dictatorships.
Ahhh, the old “I know nothing about what I’m talking about so I’m going to keep making things up” defense. Classic move and stunningly performed. I can tell you have practice.
The classic: I’m not going to disprove you because I cannot name one communist country that isn’t a dictatorship, but I want to sound cool nonetheless. Well done.
How’s the Che Guevara t-shirt made in a sweatshop doing?
Umm, you’re the only one here talking about communism.
The other guy just said capitalism, in its current late stage, sucks and is unsustainable.
Yes, I’m the only one talking about communism in lemmy, you got me there…
You might want to go check about Social Democracy.
You know, like in several Scandinavian countries, the very same that keep scoring high in happinness indices and have the highest per-capita wealth in the World (most easilly beating the US).
Just because you (understandably, if you indeed were born in an ex-Communist country) have a trauma with “Communism” that doesn’t mean that “there are only two options Capitalism or Communism” isn’t a massive falacy or that Capitalism is a great way to manage a country.
That you keep doubling down just makes it seem you’re a mindless fan of Capitalism rather than an oppositor of Communism, and that kind of tribalist take is quite the simpleton approach to evaluation options for the managing of actual countries.
It really makes no logical sense to respond to criticism of Capitalism with “whatabout Communism”.
Regarding Scandinavian countries, this is a good read. Nordic countries run on a mixed economy. They aren’t just a capitalist economy, which the other person is trying to claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining based on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy—with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. The three Scandinavian countries are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. All the Nordic countries are however described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems.
to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about
Social democracy is a flavor of capitalism. See Norways sovereign fund. Every country in Europe is a capitalist country, the happy ones (Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland) and the less happy ones.
Incorrect.
What you see in Scandinavia is actually a mix of both.
There is no problem with Capitalism as an ideology for Trading activities, as long as it’s secondary to the ideology used to manage people’s lives in society.
The problem is when Capitalism is the only thing used to manage everything in a country, including people’s lives in society, because its an ideology to maximize resource use and trade, which is not at all the same as maximizing quality of life (simple example: heavilly poluting industries maximize resource use but worsen quality of life) so you need people-oriented (rather than trade-oriented) ideologies to manage Society for people, something that Capitalism won’t do because it aims to maximize wealth without caring about the distribution of it or any non-monetary elements such as the Environment of people’s quality of life.
This is also an answer to your other comment on a question of mine: what I suggest instead of Communist or Capitalism as the ideology for rulling a country is a people-oriented political ideology such as Social Democracy and under it Capitalism for Trading, heavilly regulated.
Capitalism is very bad for guiding Society, but it’s pretty decent at managing Trading as long as it’s subservient to a political ideology whose aims are people focused, not money-focused.
You will notice that Capitalism worked somewhat decently up to the rise of Neoliberalism in the late 70s - Neoliberalism as the name indicates is all about removing oversight on Capitalism by any other ideology, mostly by the State removing itself from the work of Regulation (which is even anti-Democratic, since it weakens the power of the vote vs the power of money), thus making Capitalist objectives the ultimate objectives of Society and the only guiding hand be Money (with makes power distribution be extremelly uneven), and the natural result of that was that anything to do with quality of life and fairness in Society was entirelly dropped from the mainstream political discourse and it’s now it’s all about “Greed is good” and maximizing Economic outcomes quite independently of the distribution of the wealth thus created or the damaging side-effects for Society and the Environment of it.
They are captial market economies with government funded social services. So, capitalist.
Can you price gouge in a moneyless society?
You do realize socialist/communist economies still have a need for money, right?
They were not communist economies by any realistic definition
It doesn’t matter, even a fully actualized public owned economy still requires that it estimate and compare production and capital increase so it knows 1. How much to alot for each citizen in the daily/weekly/monthly UBI, and 2. How to compare its production capacity and volume of capital to other countries who may or may not also be collectivist.
Both of these needs require the exact understanding of production increase so that it can accurately estimate the capital (capital in this sense being the amount of wealth set aside specifically for the increase in production capacity/efficiency) that allows the economy to grow. Thus they can take that information and increase the amount of dollars available to the country or it’s citizens for use or trade with other nations.
Of course. I don’t like you, you don’t get sugar/meat/butter/gasoline/freedom. Price: infinite.
You have no idea what you’re talking about lol.
Da, comrade
How about pragmatism: real solutions to real problems.
Real solutions exist. Step 1: don’t legalize bribery.
Now you’re getting it!