1632
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
1632 points (99.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
9056 readers
4211 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My favorite lefty take to hit a capitalism/libertarian shill with is that I don't really think a communist/socialist project like the Soviet Union is the future. And honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who does want that.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
That's not 'capitalism'. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it's profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don't work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that's definitely not capitalism anymore. That's the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.
The way I get downvoted when proposing UBI for free necessities (shelter, basic car, basic food, utilities, healthcare, ect) and using capitalism for luxuries (boats, bigger house, gambling, vacations, ect), it often feels like that neither side of the aisle are happy about conceptualizing a hybrid.
Much like Newton, I feel that Adam Smith's writings on Capitalism had limits, because there is only so much that he could observe and measure in his time. Ditto for Marx. Both seem valid, but the question is in what way, and how we can use them to put together a theory of economics that is actually helpful.
Smith's main goal with capitalism was to create a system to distribute the wealth of the nation to the people of the nation to the betterment of all. In his time feudal lords sat in their huge estates, hoarding wealth and waged pointless war to the detriment of everyone else. Capitalism was a radically left wing ideology for its time.
I don't disagree with that. He, like other great minds, had to work with the knowledge and methods available to him in his time. It is our task to stand upon his shoulders and see further, otherwise his efforts would have been wasted.
The trick is to talk to real actual human beings and not people terminally online enough to know about Lemmy.
Find a lefty book club and you'll find reasonable people.
It's an easier sell to the hordes of people who grew up in a capitalist society who feel "It didn't used to be this bad", myself being one of them.
I know that workers rights are written in blood, and often earned by it too. But it still at least feels like there was a period where companies understood at least a little bit that their workers were people, and well cared for workers were better workers. That building a reputation for quality was better than planned obsolecence. That short term profits and growth at all costs was not the right path. That the resources they required to operate were not infinite.
Maybe I'm completely delusional and it's all rose tinted glasses from not being as aware of things when I was younger. I'm sure that nostalgia for childhood days is a big component.
But my point is that "Capitalism could be better if human and environmental needs are met first" is a very intuitive idea for a lot of US people.