if you support capitalism you are an ableist, a homophobe, and a transmisogynist.
Except, capitalism does none of that. Capitalism can’t do any of that as it’s merely an economic principle. That principle, by the way, which has brought the greatest era of prosperity and quality of life for humans world wide, at the fastest pace. More so than any other adopted economic policy in the history of the earth.
capitalism has killed billions and destroyed the environment. it’s a system, not merely a principle. do you not see the hypocrisy of you giving capitalism credit for making the lives of a few better while refusing to give it the blame for making the lives of 99.99% of the population worse???
Except that’s not true. In terms of technological advances across the last century, it has only developed as fast and as efficiently under one system. Capitalism is, in essence, the only system that can exist if one cares about the liberties and freedoms of individual self-governance. It is literally the only system that allows a person to determine their own course and, ultmately, determine their own level of wealth they want.
I digress, Capitalism lead the to great rise of the internet and human inter-connectivity. Capitalism has lead to the longest life expectancy of humans world wide. Capitalism has lead to great technological advances such as space exploration, personal computing devices, the ability to feed more people with less land and less labor. Without capitalism, technologies like Solar, wind, hydro-electric, geothermal, and even nuclear (which is really the greenest energy technology there is) power generation would not have come so quickly, if at all.
I wonder, though, what you define Capitalism as. It seems that your definition might be skewed, or at least not centered. This is not meant as a derision, more as an attempt to understand what you may see the term “capitalism” as meaning. May I offer a video, perhaps?
“capitalism is, in essence, the only system that can exist if one cares about the liberties and freedoms of individual self-governance”
it is absolutely impossible for the proletariat to self-govern under capitalism because they are mandated to partake in wage labor on fear of starvation. the choice between “work for someone else’s profit” and “die of starvation” is not a choice, it’s slavery. that is the exact opposite of liberty and freedom, yo.
the internet was actually created socialistically, as a government-funded enterprise. do you think the soviet union had no part in advancing technology in the 20th century? because they did.
not watching your video because it’s most certainly bourgeois garbage propaganda but here’s the definition of capitalism:
the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.
With all due respect, the fact that your definition’s source literally comes from the anti-thesis to Capitalism speaks volumes. Why not get a definition from a (semi)neutral source, i.e. Webster’s, Wikipedia, or otherwise? I say this because wouldn’t getting the definition from such a source be skewed in a way that would lend to bias?
If we do a simple google search we get the definition:
“
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
“
If we look to Webster we see:
“
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
“
And to answer your question, no I did not mean communism. In fact, communism would be the polar opposite to individual freedom and the people, or proletariat, would not be entitled to the benefits of their own individual labor.
Once again, let’s look to Webster:
“a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property”
Under such an economic system, how can any person, or individual, lay claim to their the fruits of their labor if the system itself says that they do not own the labor, or the benefits, in which they do? Do we, as human being, not have a right to our own property, be it our lives, our sweat, and/or our means of production? Why would giving the ownership of the people’s labor, both collectively and individually, to the state to control be in anyways, shape or form, add to the individual liberty and freedom of the self?
Even if a communistic state existed without the “state”, and the fruits of the labor of one belonged to the collective, how does this equate to individual freedom and the right to benefit from the fruit of individual labor? Do we, as human, not have a right to our own life? And if we do, do we not have the right to the benefits of our own labor? Or does those benefits solely belong to the collective to distribute amongst the collective?
there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. every human being has conscious and subconscious biases that shape our perspectives and there is no escaping that. even a hypothetical computer AI designed to have a neutral pov would be inexorably tainted by the point of view of its programmers. those definitions you are using were certainly written by capitalists. you have literal no idea what communism means if you use the phrase “communistic state” and think that communism means the state owning the means of production. this is 101 shit and this conversation is going to go nowhere if you can’t even grasp the basic definitions of the words we are using.
communism isa society without state apparatus or class division, in which the means of production are communally owned and controlled and in which workers receive the entirety of the fruits of their labor and all that that labor produces.
capitalism is a society in which the bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the proletariat through wage slavery.
if you cannot agree with the bolded section of this post i will not have a conversation with you about either of these things, period.
The state owning things is not the same as the workers owning it. Christ. The Soviet Union was never communist by the definition of communism as defined by communists, it wasn’t even socialist, when the workers don’t own the means of production it’s not communism. Hierarchy, differing opportunities all of these are opposed to freedom,
Madeira Darling is a snarky mystic, devout Satanist, serious Marxist, laughing dominatrix, and writer from San Fransisco where they live with their boyfriend in a house full of altars to their various demons.
View all posts by Madeira Darling
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 