Hi all,
I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.
If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.
Cheers!
There is a difference between capitalism and capitalism-without-rules (which some might call libertarianism). Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy, just like, say, football has rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy. The rule makers are the government and the rule enforcers are/is the legal system (like in football, the FA makes the rules and the Referees and others enforce those rules). So while capitalism incentivizes business creation and innovation in the name of money-making, there are supposed to be checks and balances to make it fair and in the best interests of all citizens.
Capitalism today especially in the United States is practiced more like capitalism-without-rules where the government is owned by capital owners and therefore does a poor job of making rules that are fair for all and a poor job of curtailing unbridled capitalism. It also appears that the highest level of the legal system in the US is also heavily influenced by capital owners.
I suspect what the “hate” is about is the way capitalism is practiced today.
If capitalism was being practiced responsibly with checks and balances by well-functioning governments and judiciaries, then there would be less hate. This will only happen if people hold governments accountable through protest. Voting is not enough because capital can “buy” all voting options/parties. Protest has brought many civilizing changes to capitalism, especially in the US in the 60s, but the pendulum has swung back to the public not being organized enough or not caring enough to force governments to do their jobs.
The current system has a shit tonne of rules about how to do capitalism. It is not a free for all or an anarchy. It might be developing into a neo feudal system, with fascist oligarch clans running various nation states, but still lots of rules for running the beast.
Yes it’s true that the current system has lots of rules but just because there are lots of rules doesn’t mean they’re effective. They do a poor job of limiting capitalism’s negative effects. Which is what they’re supposed to do. Quantity but not quality.
The rules aren’t intended to limit negative effects, for the most part. Instead, as you know, the rules are focused on transactions and contracts and making sure property rights are prioritized over all other rights. My objection was to your characterization of the system as ‘capitalism without rules’, and that somehow ‘Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy’. Meant by whom? Certainly not by the neoliberal ideologists. Certainly not by the oligarchs ruining the planet. The era of ‘fair capitalism’, what has been labeled the ‘fordist era’, the New Deal era in the USA and the social democratic era of the european democracies, that is now long past.
However, even under social democratic reform, capitalism requires perpetual growth, it is a system of accumulation that rewards growth and growth alone. A system that is sustainable, that is not dependent on growth, that allows human civilization to exist in harmony with its environment, such a system would not be capitalism.
Good points. Yes I obviously agree that rules to keep capitalism less unfair could not be - almost by definition - implemented by neoliberals. Even Adam Smith declared that free and fair markets can only exist with the oversight of governments who keep the public interest as priority. BTW I’d push back on the idea though that new deal-type economies are completely dead as some countries especially those with strong labor movements still have aspects of fairness.
But your bigger point relates to growth. And I agree that this is a massive problem, probably the most important problem for humanity to deal with. But growth is not a UNIQUE characteristic of capitalism. Socialist economies also concern themselves with growth. What’s unique to capitalism is that the rewards of growth accrue to the private owners of the engines of growth. In socialist economies, growth can still be an economic objective but the rewards of growth (are supposed to) accrue to workers or society at large. Growth is not uniquely capitalist.
Anyway, this is getting a little bit off the OP’s original ask. From a definitional standpoint, I view the OP’s question about why lemmy users lean toward anti-capitalism as “why do lemmy users lean against private ownership of the means of production?” which makes sense coz we’re on a decentralized system, dislike centrally owned systems like Facebook, Reddit, etc. I don’t think s/he was asking why lemmy users are anti-growth. Although that’s an interesting issue to discuss too.