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
๐ณ๐ฑ
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.
@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.
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 @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Missing their whole point it seems.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Even if you don't include america. Capitalism in every conception creates inequality. Not just in the context of incom. But in the context of access to resources. Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare. No human should be denied treatment. So no, contribution hardly matters. The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
Even if you don’t include america.
Agreed, I am not including america here specifically. I am speaking of capitalism as a whole (which would include the whole of the EU, the UK and the overwhelming majority of countries world-wide).
Capitalism in every conception creates inequality.
It doesnt create inequality, it fairly rewards people for the amount of utility they give to society. Since people give utility to society unequally, this means people are fairly rewarded and those rewards are unequal.
Capitalism (when healthy) provides equity (fairness) not equality (everyone event) which is exactly how it should be!
Not just in the context of incom [sic] But in the context of access to resources.
Agreed, and this is a good thing. People who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.
Again equity over equality. The bigger issue is if people have the same access to opportunity. In other words, if you can demonstrate you provide utility to society will you have the equity of having access to the resources you have demonstrated you earned. A healthy capitalism does just that.
Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare.
If you can afford healthcare you should be paying for it out of pocket. If you cant society should help you with welfare programs. A capitalism does not preclude social welfare.
No human should be denied treatment.
Agreed, and when a capitalist government provides healthcare to those who cant afford it, they are still a capitalist country. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with social welfare.
The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
No it doesnt. It defines your access to resources, and it isnt arbitrary, it is based on the utility you provide to society (in a healthy capitalism).
The fact that you think a persons worth as an individual is synonymous with the resources they have access to is a very concerning POV.
To clarify; "healthy capitalism" is not what the socialist/communists calls "capitalism". We have today a state-induced power structure that breeds off capitalism (unhealthy) for power and control.
What is sickening to me is that said socialists/communists in practice want to get rid of the "good part" (capitalism) from what we have today and keep the "power and control" to micromanage the population to starvation, when the capital runs out.
If a capitalism isnt healthy then it isnt a capitalism. So they are using the wrong term.
The fundamental tenant of capitalism is a free market where all players are judged not on who they are or their power, but by the utility they bring alone. If you have an exploitative system then you dont have a free market (as someone is in control of it) and therefore do not have a capitalism to begin with.
We on the capitalism side agree on this, but my point was that when socialists talk about capitalism, they mean the crony-crapitalism we have today (where billions of loot...I mean taxes...are handed out to BigCorps), and therefore the subject can't even be discussed in a honest manner.
Yea I get that... my point to drive home to them (not you) is "that isnt what capitalism is at all, you can't just make up words" :)
@freemo @niclas @aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom My issue with this whole debate is that I was calling out a real problem with the real economic system I am affected by in reality that calls itself capitalism, and you jumped in to defend the hypothetical version of capitalism that can't exist in a pure form so it's irrelevant to my critiques and deflects the point. I want to engage with people about the reality we're facing and discuss potential solutions, not have my energy wasted on pedantry.
My issue with this whole debate is that I was calling out a real problem with the real economic system I am affected by in reality that calls itself capitalism,
Again there is no such thing as a “system called capitalism”… capitalism is a tenant, a small component in a complex system with countless components. Its more accurate to say you are identifying real problems in a complex system of government. One of its many tenants includes capitalism among them.
The important aspect of my initial response, which directly address the context without going onto a tangent at that time, was that your system of government being shitty has nothing to do with it having a principle of capitalism among its principles, but rather other factors dealing with complex and subtle elements.
and you jumped in to defend the hypothetical version
No that came later as people had various clap backs at my input, and then we down the rabit hole into discussions that expanded on various ideas and explored them. This was not the case for my initial response. But ultimately diverging into this deeper dive shouldnt be problematic in anyway. That said, you could always have asked me to politely disengage and I would have been more than happy to honor that. You did not, we continued
that can’t exist in a pure form so it’s irrelevant to my critiques
No tenants can exist in pure form, as no tentants are systems… Communism, socialism, corpacracy, capitalism… any tenant you list are just singular ideas, not a single one of them can exist as pure systems of covernement because not a single one of them is a system of government on their own. We do however have tons of examples of system of governments that include some combination of those ideas within their system.
So yea, it cant exist in a pure form, neither can anything else, that doesnt make it irrelevant to your critiques, it just makes your critiques poorly formed (in my view, others may find them well formed). You absolutely could have critiqued it in a way that would have been entierly relevant to any critiques, its just to do so you’d have to stop insisting it was a whole system and recognize it was only an ideal that can be used as a principle in some systems.
and deflects the point.
It doesnt deflect the point, it does however require you to refine the point to incorporate the new information I am present. A re-framing of your point to the new information very well could have had a more valuable and fruitful discussion (in fact a few others were able to do that more successfully IMO)
I want to engage with people about the reality we’re facing and discuss potential solutions, not have my energy wasted on pedantry.
Exactly, which is precisely my goal as well. Which is why it is so important i push you to stop making dogmatic idealized arguments and recognized the complex nuance of these systems so we can do just this, discuss real potential solutions rather than wasting time on pedantry.
