this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
273 points (93.6% liked)
Socialism
5976 readers
1 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capitalism is not based on the notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.
It is the way we do it! :-P
No, it isn't. "Capitalism" doesn't depend on growth. You can have a shrinking economy, even an intentional degrowth economy, which is still capitalist.
Whatever thing it is you're referring to that assumes infinite growth, that thing isn't capitalism.
I think they're referring to a common growth projection strategy used in modern capitalism which is basically whatever number we made last year + X% is our goals for this year and if we don't make that growth then it's considered a failure and now we have to lay people off.
No capitalist is ever okay with doing just as well as last year, or recognizing that last year was an extraordinary circumstance that gave us blockbuster sales and it isn't necessarily repeatable.
It may not be the textbook definition, but it's definitely a trait of modern capitalists.
The closed, finite system we are referring to is of course Earth. Capitalism requires expansion, but what do you do when you cannot expand further?
This isn't capitalism.
Traits of particular capitalists are not what constitutes capitalism.
If it isn't capitalism then I would argue it's a direct consequence of the incentives it sets up. When a venture is primarily owned by investors whose only interest in it is a return on investment, sooner rather than later, it sort of sets up exactly what I described does it not?
Maybe the words I should have used were "unfettered capitalism"?
No it doesn't.
While technically true in theory, I was pointing out how in practice people tend to implement it differently. It doesn't help that almost every irl system that people describe as "capitalist" is not pure - e.g. the UK (& the USA in the era of 50s-60s) are a mixture of socialist policies & capitalist ones, like there can be "public" (socialism) schools funded by taxpayer dollars and controlled by the government side-by-side along with "private" (capitalist) schools that aim to provide a different experience (usually higher-end but oftentimes something else like a more religious affiliation). So the "pure capitalism" theoretical model does not seem to have much irl practical application, without adding all of those extra features that while not mandatory in the theory, seem to almost always be used in practice.
You're not describing socialism, socialism is when the workers own the means of production. You're describing capitalist government programs.
Right, it is quite a stretch, I get it. Citizens pay taxes and vote thereby have extremely diluted control over the means of production for schools, as opposed to private schools where they control it by means of their dollars going towards whichever one they choose (causing them to compete for that privilege). It's an extremely watered-down form of socialism existing inside of an other capitalist-dominated society, but the main point is that whatever it is / whatever words are used to describe it, the goal of it runs counter to the goal of capitalism to make profits, and instead just benefits the populace directly (many caveats aside, like how schools are funded in large measure from local taxation, causing a segregation effect where the rich tend to congregate together and thus have good schools whereby the poor must also congregate together, out of whatever is leftover, and thereby have lesser quality schooling - but that aside, within a given school district, the aim is usually for the children to be taught equally without regard for ability to pay, though heavy caveats exist there too e.g. supplies, lunches, etc.).
Anyway, I cannot defend the OP meme, I was only trying to point out what looks to have been the POV behind it.