I think these are reasonable suggestions to make society more equitable. Do you disagree with any of them? Or just don't like them because they modify the existing system instead of tearing it all down?

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They are reasonable suggestions if you refuse to think outside the box of capitalism.

And no, thinking outside of capitalism doesn't require to tear it all down. That is exactly what the capitalist want us to think with their TINA.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What would you change it for? We've tried many systems globally and historically. Capitalism seems to be the best at reducing poverty.

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No it's not. Russian and Chinese state capitalism turned two preindustrial countries into global superpowers in a matter of decades, and lifted unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty. And they weren't even communist! Communism has been tried in places like Catalonia and economically, it succeeded. Militarily, not so much, but only because all the capitalists turned against them. Capitalism is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lifting people out of poverty.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, China and Russia had rapid advancements in reducing poverty by embracing capitalism market principles. That's partly the point.

Nobody is advocating for pure capitalism. No country practices it. It's theoretical and has no restrictions, or regulations.

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago

No, they didn't advance by adopting capitalism market principles. They advanced by adopting state capitalism, which is actually defined by lack of a market. They had a planned economy instead, and they advanced faster than the US because markets are inefficient. China has a planned economy with markets, but highly regulated and non based on competition like a traditional capitalist style market.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's a completely ahistorical take. Capitalism is best at creating poverty when you look at it globally. Yes it is good at concentrating riches in a few places, and from a rich western perspective it may look like it "reduced" poverty, but even that is starting to become questionable these days.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, its really not. Capitalism increases productivity and wealth. How that wealth is distributed varies by country. Russia for instance has oligopolies that mean most goes to individuals. Europe has social programs that mean its more evenly spread. Its up to the countries and law makers to plan that well. Its not the fault of the concept if its misused. Its a tool, like any other.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Sorry but I hate to pop your privileged bubble, but that is evidently false and pure propaganda by capitalists. And capitalism isn't even a tool, it is a political ideology with a clear goal (concentrate wealth in a few hands).

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

Bbbut be just needs anger management classes...