Asklemmy

43874 readers

1516 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

445

Why are folks so anti-capitalist? (programming.dev)

submitted 1 year ago by o_o@programming.dev to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

897 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.

The US government did not produce all the technologies. Many of them are from private companies. Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.

[–] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.

What? Do you have only a black/white mentality? Of course not. We have a mixed system, as does almost the rest of the world that isn't a dictatorship. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there's a compelling argument that one really can't exist without the other.

Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.

Yes, that's called socialism. The government levies taxes from its people, then the government redistributes the wealth, that's the very definition of socialism.

[–] qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What? Do you have only a black/white mentality? Of course not. We have a mixed system, as does almost the rest of the world that isn’t a dictatorship. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there’s a compelling argument that one really can’t exist without the other.

We have a mixed system. But we are capitalistic leaning are we not? Being capitalist or socialist are not discrete choices, but a continuous scale. I agree with you on that.

Btw the 1929 great crash was facilitate and exacerbated by lax Federal Reserve control of money issuance and the drastic tightening after the crash. This is actually an argument against centralized money.

Yes, that’s called socialism. The government levies taxes from its people, then the government redistributes the wealth, that’s the very definition of socialism.

Well a joint stock company also does that. It engages in production. It does redistribute wealth. For a long time, public services e.g. firefighting, were provided by private entities. Is it socialism? I don't think so. It has to involve coercion, say, via monopoly of violence to be socialism as it is a form of governing.

[–] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Btw the 1929 great crash was facilitate and exacerbated by lax Federal Reserve control of money issuance and the drastic tightening after the crash. This is actually an argument against centralized money.

I'd suggest you look up the Panics of the 19th century.

Well a joint stock company also does that. It engages in production. It does redistribute wealth. For a long time, public services e.g. firefighting, were provided by private entities. Is it socialism? I don’t think so. It has to involve coercion, say, via monopoly of violence to be socialism as it is a form of governing.

You obviously don't understand what socialism means. Socialism, by its definition, means involving government, be it local or federal. So, a private company is not socialism, a private fire fighting brigade is not socialism.