• poVoq@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    They are reasonable suggestions if you refuse to think outside the box of capitalism.

    And no, thinking outside of capitalism doesn’t require to tear it all down. That is exactly what the capitalist want us to think with their TINA.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      What would you change it for? We’ve tried many systems globally and historically. Capitalism seems to be the best at reducing poverty.

      • exocrinous@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No it’s not. Russian and Chinese state capitalism turned two preindustrial countries into global superpowers in a matter of decades, and lifted unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty. And they weren’t even communist! Communism has been tried in places like Catalonia and economically, it succeeded. Militarily, not so much, but only because all the capitalists turned against them. Capitalism is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lifting people out of poverty.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, China and Russia had rapid advancements in reducing poverty by embracing capitalism market principles. That’s partly the point.

          Nobody is advocating for pure capitalism. No country practices it. It’s theoretical and has no restrictions, or regulations.

          • exocrinous@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, they didn’t advance by adopting capitalism market principles. They advanced by adopting state capitalism, which is actually defined by lack of a market. They had a planned economy instead, and they advanced faster than the US because markets are inefficient. China has a planned economy with markets, but highly regulated and non based on competition like a traditional capitalist style market.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s a completely ahistorical take. Capitalism is best at creating poverty when you look at it globally. Yes it is good at concentrating riches in a few places, and from a rich western perspective it may look like it “reduced” poverty, but even that is starting to become questionable these days.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, its really not. Capitalism increases productivity and wealth. How that wealth is distributed varies by country. Russia for instance has oligopolies that mean most goes to individuals. Europe has social programs that mean its more evenly spread. Its up to the countries and law makers to plan that well. Its not the fault of the concept if its misused. Its a tool, like any other.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Sorry but I hate to pop your privileged bubble, but that is evidently false and pure propaganda by capitalists. And capitalism isn’t even a tool, it is a political ideology with a clear goal (concentrate wealth in a few hands).