mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

317K
active users

☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

Simple question: Do you think capitalism should be abolished? Please explain why not if your answer is "no."

@Radical_EgoCom Another question might be "CAN it be abolished, without going full-on France in 1792 et al" (which might not be a bad thing, but consequences might be extreme these days.)

@bytebro

Logic and history dictate that violence will likely be necessary to abolish capitalism. Logically, the capitalist ruling class will use violence of all kinds to prevent capitalisms abolition, which would require the revolutionary class seeking abolition to use violence as well, and historically, the vast majority of revolutions in human history have been violent in some capacity.

@bytebro

Whether it'll be as violent as the French Revolution of 1792 is up for debate, but regardless, the abolition of capitalism will likely be violent.

@Radical_EgoCom @bytebro one thing people fail to understand is how violent it is to maintain capitalism.

@Radical_EgoCom @Homempovo @bytebro

As bloody as dismantling capitalism may be, poverty is a violence that is far bloodier & more deadly. For the many, comrade.

@FranceskaMann @Radical_EgoCom @bytebro of course, it's hard to think of something more violent then children dying of hunger while food is being wasted to keep prices up. But I meant the same kind of violence people think of when prompted about revolution. All the police brutality, overcrowded prisons, abusive border control, invasions, coups, wars... The fact that some of us aren't being directly affected by this kind of violence should not stop us from engaging in the fight to free everyone from all sorts of violence needed to maintain capitalism.

@Homempovo @FranceskaMann @Radical_EgoCom @bytebro

❝...𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞? 𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐥, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐭'𝐬 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐟𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐬𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 - 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞...❞
--𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐍𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬

@Radical_EgoCom @bytebro One thing will be certain the greed mongering capitalist will not fight their own war they will be hidden away in their mansions or bunkers.Sooner or later Frankenstein's monster will turn on its master.

@Radical_EgoCom @bytebro I voted yes but it's important for me to stress that it should be abolished without being replaced by another oppressive regime/system. I think we should find a way to eliminate social hierarchy at large.

@BlackGlitterXx @bytebro

I think that the immediate abolition of a hierarchical system is impractical because it will be necessary after the abolition of to repress counter-revolution and stop foreign threats. The abolition of all hierarchy should be the ultimate goal for humanity, but its immediate abolition after the abolition of capitalism just wouldn't be practicable.

@bytebro @Radical_EgoCom
Another another question might be, even if dismantling capitalism may have dire consequences, won't holding on to it be even worse? If both constellations are problematic, I prefer the option that seems morally right to me.

@bytebro @Radical_EgoCom
And with all due respect, and this is not meant as a provocation, many of the answers here, or counter-questions, sound very much like "It will be difficult to change anything, so let's leave it as it is" and that is not a good maxim. This approach is also being taken with the climate and it seems very similar to me. It just shows me how caught up we are in it and that is one more reason to change something. We have been driving the cart against the wall for so long that there is no easy solution anymore. We have brought that upon ourselves. But we all know that we cannot carry on like this.

@bytebro @Radical_EgoCom
What people want to hear with such counter-questions is how you think you can make everything right. I find that a bit dishonest. We all know that this option has long since ceased to exist. It's not about how we make it right, but about saving what can be saved. And yes, shit is going to hit the fan. But I want to at least have hope. And hope means choosing what seems right to me when neither of these things stops the flood.

@flowchainsenseifoss

I do not accept questions as answers to my simple question.

@Radical_EgoCom and if yes explain how an alternative system would work. I haven't ever heard of a system that isn't worse than capitalism.

@FisherPeter

Socialism (the collective ownership of the means of production by society), an alternative system to capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production by individuals or corporations) is better than capitalism in that it allows everyone in society, regardless of social status, to have access to the basic necessities of life (housing, food, healthcare, etc).

@Radical_EgoCom @Reddog @FisherPeter Absolutely amazing isnt it that people having basic needs is controversial, but people having billions of pounds/dollars/etc of planes/houses/cars/yachts/hoarded cash whilst underpaying workers is acceptable and encouraged.

@Radical_EgoCom Please give me an example (country) of where this has worked

@FisherPeter

Cuba. The Cuban government under Fidel Castro nationalized industries and implemented extensive social programs, particularly in healthcare and education, and as a result has achieved high literacy rates and a strong public health system, though the economy has faced challenges, particularly due to the U.S. embargo and limited economic reforms.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom saying a communist country is paradoxal, communism is against the state

@vipuri @FisherPeter

To be fair, they asked me to give an example of a country where socialism worked, not communism.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom
It's hard to do that because the Capitalists have gone out of their way to destroy any country, economically, that has embraced socialism.
It's fair to say that may countries claimed to embrace socialism but were just dictatorships, so they failed.

@MrLee @FisherPeter

It isn't fair or accurate to say that. Despite the interference from capitalist countries like the U.S.A, there have been, and currently are, countries that not only embraced socialism, but were in fact socialist, such as the former Soviet Union or modern-day Cuba.

@Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter
Not denying their existence. I am just saying it's hard to measure how successful they are given the amount of interference they have had to endure.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom The U.K. was quite socialist til #THATCHER …rail, road transit, power, water, gas, were all state owned.

@TheWolfOfSouthEnd @Radical_EgoCom and were considered to offer a fairly awful service. Also, national rail strikes and lack of investment meant the railway in particular was almost unuseable. Trains, at least, improved a little after they were sold off. It didn't last and they will soon be re-nationalised. Britain, back then, was a poor advert for socialism - it was not working.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom Of course they were a bit rubbish. We were a bit skint after WW2 for a good while.
Do you think that these services work well now?

@TheWolfOfSouthEnd @Radical_EgoCom The trains, when i last used them, were better than in the early 70s. At least clean with mainly undamaged seats and doors that work. Early 70s britain was awful - trains poor, gas management poor, electricity plagued by strikes (by miners). The state owned services existed for those who worked in them, not the people they were supposed to serve.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom It’s exactly like that now.

Ask yourself why the miners were on strike….and tell me a better system.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom
It worked in post-war Britain when the Welfare State and National Health Service was established.
Neoliberal capitalism started picking that apart under Thatcher, because Capitalism hates competing ideologies.

@Alternatecelt @FisherPeter

Well, that wasn't socialism since the means of production were not collectively owned. It was welfare capitalism, and I would say that it being eviscerated by neoliberal capitalism highlights a major flaw in the capitalist welfare state, that being that as long as capitalism still exists it will challenge any attempt at achieving social equality.

@Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter
Socialism doesn't depend on collective ownership, communism does, but anyway that government took a great deal of assets into public ownership such as Rail, Health, Welfare, roads, aviation, the Bank of England, electricity, gas and steel.

@Alternatecelt @FisherPeter

You're wrong about the definition of socialism and communism. Socialism is the direct or governmental ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Communism is a classless, stateless society in which all property is owned communally.

@Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter
Hmm. European ideas about Socialism are a bit different, I think.

@Alternatecelt @FisherPeter

I doubt it since socialism originates from Europe, and this definition is based on socialism as derived in Europe.

@Alternatecelt @FisherPeter

This definition doesn't go into specific detail explaining what socialism actually is, and instead gives an extremely quick description of socialism that lacks any of the key details of socialist ideology. Maybe spend more time looking up more comprehensive definitions of political ideologies instead of settling for definitions that try to summarize a several hundred year old ideology into one brief and nondescriptive sentence.

@Alternatecelt @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom While I'm appalled at how much has been sold off I'm also amazed and impressed how much there was to sell. It's incredible to me how much we used to own collectively and what an achievement that was.

@flowti @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom
Me too.
I also wonder what might have been if Atlee's government had stayed in power for another term.

@Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter IMHO, eco-socialism would be more an alternative to capitalism than "old style" socialism.

@pascale @FisherPeter

If by "'old style' socialism" you mean socialism that wasn't heavily focused on environmental protectionism, then I completely agree, eco-socialism would be far more preferable. There's no reason why we can't have collective ownership of the means of production and a safe and healthy environment.

@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Depends on what you mean by "worse than capitalism". Capitalism makes luxury goods common; socialism makes common goods into luxuries. If you value economic equality above all else, and don't care if everyone is equally destitute and desperate, socialism is the system for you.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom but people are desperate and common goods are luxury to the majority of people under capitalism. Remember that Africa, South America, and most of Asia is under capitalist regimes, it's not only the poor neighborhood in your town. Housing, for instance, is a very evident problem even in Europe nowadays, and has never been an issue in socialist countries. In fact, it's a fallacy that socialist countries fail to provide people with what they need and much more — fallacy that the US not only propagandise, but also attempt to make true by crippling socialist countries economies via embargoes (siege warfare).

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

"but people are desperate and common goods are luxury to the majority of people under capitalism."

Perhaps you could provide a specific example of a common good that is a luxury under capitalism.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom I did mention housing, but examples are plentiful. Food is another obvious one. In the USA, the most paradigmatic capitalist country in the world, 13,5% of the people face hunger, which is worse than the global average (9%), but even the majority of people who have access to food would consider it a luxury to purchase organic non-industrialised food.

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Well, first, let's be clear; there US is FAR from being a totally capitalist system. We have massive amounts of regulation on many sectors; including, relevantly, housing, and food. Both sectors are heavily regulated.

I do notice you compare your (unsourced) numbers to a global average, not to an average of non-capitalist nations.

@AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social 1. Yes, it's regulated capitalism. Laissez-faire ancap is not the only form of capitalism...

2. 9% (1/11) per the WHO
https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report

3. There are 5 AES countries. China, the largest by far, has a hunger rate below 2.5% (
https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13476). Vietnam is at 6.4% (https://www.globalhungerindex.org/vietnam.html). Laos is slightly behind USA at 14.8 (https://vientianetimes.org.la/freeContent/FreeConten56_Over_1_y23.php). Cuba is at 12.8% according to the US govt. (https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=110175) and obviously there are no reliable stats for DPRK (no, Park "this was once revealed to me in a dream" Yeon-Mi is not reliable) due to its isolation, although I would imagine it struggles compared to less-heavily sanctioned countries. So the AES average, excluding DPRK since it has no stats, is only 0.1% higher than the global average. And still much better than USA.

www.who.intHunger numbers stubbornly high for three consecutive years as global crises deepen: UN reportAround 733 million people faced hunger in 2023, equivalent to one in eleven people globally and one in five in Africa, according to the latest State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report published today by five United Nations specialized agencies.

@luna

1. So at what point do you regard those controls by the state as socialist?

2. Okay, so again, a global average. Not an average of "capitalist" countries, insofar as there are any and that such a thing is binary, compared with an average of "non-capitalist" countries.

@luna

3. Not sure why you'd limit yourself to AES countries (and take data on each from widely disparate source, apparently including state-run newspapers). Why not consider other places with powerful socialist policies and central planning? Also not sure why you would claim that the DPRK is "still much better than USA".

@AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social Sorry for unclear communication-- I was saying that the AES average, 9.1% was better than USA 13.%. DPRK numbers are almost certainly worse, but I couldn't find any that weren't sourced by YeonMi or RFA or its ilk. Disparate sources are trying to find the most official/reliable result on the first page of "hunger rate in <country>" because I was lazy lol

@AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social As for AES-only, what other countries should be included? Genuine question. I've seen people say Venezuela, Sweden, Mali, even the UK(???) so I just went with the most clear-cut options.

@luna

I think that it's not useful to make such a comparison between any lists of countries. One, for the very obvious reason that nearly none of them are purely socialist, and zero of them are purely capitalist. And two, because the economic system is only one of a VAST number of things that affect health. At best, you can make generalizations, and generalizations are rarely accurate enough to account for a few percentage points here or there.

@luna

Well, for one, I'd question whether "most official/reliable result" makes much sense. And so do you; you already question number from "the RFA or its ilk". Just because the numbers come from an "official" source doesn't make them reliable.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom Regulations were introduced to save capitalism after the crash of 1929, not the other way around. The same thing happened in 2008. Regulations are a sort of bypass to some of capitalism's contradictions, and that (along with privatising) is what's called neoliberalism, as opposed to classic liberalism, where fewer regulations took place and state-owned enterprises filled the gaps in economy to keep businesses running. But regulations do not transfer the control over the means of production to the workers, nor do they keep capitalists from profiting from other people's labour by any means, so a neoliberal state is still entirely capitalist in nature, and even more so in some sense.

@AlexanderKingsbury @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

Look, capitalism is certainly the best system to extract wealth from the resources available, I give you that. The point is workers, in this system, are also an available resource from which wealth is extracted, and the less we fight it, the more wealth is taken away from us. Our wealth is our time and workforce, and as you can probably see, more and more people are having to take a second job or do Uber to afford housing, which, in this shared-economy we're living, has become a sort of means of production. I see regulations taking place to save the system in a short time, but why should we still have to pay to have a roof over our heads at nighttime when there are houses already built literally for everyone in the first place?

@Homempovo @FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom

"Look, capitalism is certainly the best system to extract wealth from the resources available, I give you that."

I never asked for that, nor did I make that claim.