The idea that it's justifiable to let unspeakable suffering within your community continue when you have enough excess (meaning losing it wouldn't affect your overall quality of life) resources to stop it, just because those resources "belong" to you and you shouldn't be expected to give them up unless you get something better in return, is absolutely the most selfish, morally bankrupt and evil foundation for a society that always leads to fascism eventually.
#Capitalism
🇳🇱
Agreed, people who dont donate their time and money to help charities, especially when you have excess, is morally dubious at best.
Not sure what that has to do with #Capitalism however.
> concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals
Yes, though, it distributes fairly based on their contribution to society when operating in a healthy way. Societies dont have an equal distribution of people contributing equal utility, ergo you **should** see unequal distribution of wealth in a healthy government with a typical population.
> which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about
Fully disagree. Uneven distributions of wealth does not, in and of itself, lead to lower quality of life or less charitable works. In fact, it has been objectively shown that rich people give significantly higher percentages of their income to charity than middle class or poor.
> where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others
That does not line up with reality IMO. Very few rich "hoard wealth" which would look like a mountain of resources sitting in a vault collecting dust (such as useful minerals, or other materials useful to society). In fact they dont even tend to hoard money itself. Almost all rich people have all of their money actively in the community and used for social utility. For example in investment in businesses. No person who hoarded wealth would be rich because wealth looses value with time. You only become rich by not hoarding wealth (putting your money out into the community, at a risk of loosing it or getting a return).
@freemo @Vincarsi
Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals inherently creates systemic inequalities and power imbalances, regardless of any perceived meritocracy in wealth distribution, and charitable works and investments by the wealthy do not address the root causes of poverty and exploitation perpetuated by the #capitalist system.
> Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals inherently creates systemic inequalities and power imbalances
While the word "systematic" is a bit nebulous here, and not too important, overall I'd say yes, this is true, it creates power imbalance, and that is a GOOD thing.
There should not be equal power, there should be power imbalance. People who have demonstrated they have produced the most utility for society **should** have more power than those who dont. This ensures those with a demonstrated track record of providing utility for society continue to maximize societies utility.
Now the important part, of course, is having the proper checks on those powers. A president has more power than a citizen, this is fine because we have checks on that presidents power, checks that (ideally) ensure that if that power is abused they loose that power.
> investments by the wealthy do not address the root causes of poverty
Agreed. I am not claiming that investments by the wealthy alone address the root cause of poverty. While having wealthy people in a society is a good thing I am in no way proposing it solves all of life's ills. I am also in no way claiming we should be without social programs. All countries in europe are capitalistic for example, most of which also include social welfare as part of their capitalist governance, and that is an important aspect of a healthy capitalist government, but must be done carefully to do right as well.
> exploitation perpetuated by the #capitalist system.
Capitalism doesnt exploit people. People exploit people. And if markets allow exploitation then they arent free markets, and therefore are not capitalist in nature.
@freemo @Vincarsi
Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals creates a power imbalances that favor the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority, and checks and balances within a capitalist system are sufficient to prevent abuse of power that these power imbalances spawn. Capitalism itself inherently exploits workers through the extraction of surplus value from their labor. It's not correct to only attribute exploitation to individual actions and ignore the effects of #capitalism
> Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals creates a power imbalances that favor the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority,
Thats a circular argument. Concerntrating wealth creates wealthy people, absolutely, thats the point. It doesnt favor the wealthy, it creates them, exactly as we should want it to (assuming this is concentration is a factor of utility, which in a healthy capitalism it is).
> checks and balances within a capitalist system are sufficient to prevent abuse of power that these power imbalances spawn.
Whether they are sufficient or not dependent entierly on the government. Some government lack sufficient checks and balances on power, others do not. There is nothing inherent about capitalism that garuntees these checks and balances are absent.
> Capitalism itself inherently exploits workers through the extraction of surplus value from their labor.
Wrong, capitalism provides the necessary utility to workers to allow their labor to have surplus value, surplus value that their labor would not have on its own.
> It's not correct to only attribute exploitation to individual actions...
Agreed, it would be incorrect to attribute exploitation **only** to individual actions. Which is why i didnt do that, I expressed both the effects of individual actions and collectively (checks and balances are a collective actions).
> and ignore the effects of #capitalism
Its not the effects of capitalism, so those arent ignored.
@freemo @Vincarsi
A few individuals concentrating wealth among themselves isn't desirable, at least not to the poor, as it creates a power imbalances that favor the elite. These power imbalances exist because the capitalist system inherently prioritizes profit over the well-being of workers and the community, making checks and balances insufficient in preventing exploitation and oppression. It's not individual or collective action that's at fault, it's the inherent nature of #capitalism.
> A few individuals concentrating wealth among themselves isn't desirable
It is if those individuals are providing the most utility to society. Absolutely it is.
> at least not to the poor
Even to the poor. A society that maximizes utility of its resources benefits the whole of society when that society has equity (instead of equality). Which as I said is an element of a healthy capitalism.
> as it creates a power imbalances that favor the elite
No, it creates power imbalances that favor the people who add the most utility to society, making them elite. Which again, is exactly what we **want**.
> These power imbalances exist because the capitalist system inherently prioritizes profit over the well-being of workers and the community
Incorrect. capitalism inherently prioritizes utility, profit without utility doesnt exist in a healthy capitalism. As for the well-being of workers, you only get maximum utility if you have healthy workers, ergo a healthy capitalism will not dismiss the health of its working populace.
> making checks and balances insufficient in preventing exploitation and oppression.
Since your prior was wrong your posterior is likewise wrong.
> It's not individual or collective action that's at fault, it's the inherent nature of #capitalism.
Since you are repeatedly mischaracterizing what capitalism even is this conclusion falls flat.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom you're mischaracterizing capitalism as something that doesn't have inherent flaws.
The very fact you keep talking about "healthy capitalism" belies that you know you're talking about a fantasy where all of the problems with capitalism are magically solved. I'm not interested in a system that's only good if everyone does it right. The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under capitalism, it doesn't matter what it's like healthy when it's so easily sickened.
> you're mischaracterizing capitalism as something that doesn't have inherent flaws.
No I wouldnt say so. I am not claiming its flawed or not. Capitalism itself is one ideology, as with all ideologies it does not and can not exist in a bubble. There is no such thing as a "pure capitalism" because a capitalism is one among many principles that must be combined to form a government.
Flaws arise in how one combines the various principles available to them to form a system of government than incorporates those principles.
As I have mentioned many times I continually assert the adjective "healthy capitalism" to distinguish it from unhealthy capitalism, which can certainly exist as well (and have plenty of flaws). What makes a capitalism healthy or not comes from the nuance in how one combines principles along side it.
> The very fact you keep talking about "healthy capitalism" belies that you know you're talking about a fantasy where all of the problems with capitalism are magically solved.
Quite the opposite, if I thought capitalism was perfect as a pure ideology without the need for any other principles or nuance then I would not need the adjective "healthy". The fact that I am using that adjective is exactly the evidence that it isnt a fantasy and that I am well aware that unhealthy capitalism can also exist.
> I'm not interested in a system that's only good if everyone does it right.
Since capitalism is not a "system" it is a pure ideology, and a system only comes about when you combine principles and nuance to create an overall mechanation this statement is nonsensical to the context.
> The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under capitalism
The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under quite many principles in play, many of which have had unhealthy manifestations. This includes communistic countries (which also are equally nuanced).
> it doesn't matter what it's like healthy when it's so easily sickened.
Agreed, which is why the overall system selected must be one that is not easily sickened.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi
I understand your reasoning and why you think that way, but I wholeheartedly disagree with most of your conclusions.
Certainly nothing wrong with disagreeing.
Of course without further comment other than that im not sure stating as much adds much value to the dialog. But that said I do appreciate you sharing your stance on the issue all the same.
@freemo @Vincarsi
#Capitalism concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals, which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about, where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others unless they can benefit financially in some way.