Asklemmy

I'm a bit libertarian leaning myself, but I do believe capitalism requires moral constraints on external, societal costs that are not included in market forces (e.g. environmental pollution).

In short, capitalism's greatest benefit it is also it's greatest issue: it delivers most efficiently exactly what people want, but without any evaluation whether those wants are beneficial.

There is a difference between capitalism and capitalism-without-rules (which some might call libertarianism). Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy, just like, say, football has rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy. The rule makers are the government and the rule enforcers are/is the legal system (like in football, the FA makes the rules and the Referees and others enforce those rules). So while capitalism incentivizes business creation and innovation in the name of money-making, there are supposed to be checks and balances to make it fair and in the best interests of all citizens.

Capitalism today especially in the United States is practiced more like capitalism-without-rules where the government is owned by capital owners and therefore does a poor job of making rules that are fair for all and a poor job of curtailing unbridled capitalism. It also appears that the highest level of the legal system in the US is also heavily influenced by capital owners.

I suspect what the “hate” is about is the way capitalism is practiced today.

If capitalism was being practiced responsibly with checks and balances by well-functioning governments and judiciaries, then there would be less hate. This will only happen if people hold governments accountable through protest. Voting is not enough because capital can “buy” all voting options/parties. Protest has brought many civilizing changes to capitalism, especially in the US in the 60s, but the pendulum has swung back to the public not being organized enough or not caring enough to force governments to do their jobs.

Pure capitalism favors the wealthy and the unscrupulous. That is if there are no laws in place protecting peoples rights then the business owners have little incentive to treat there employees well (they will trade short term profits over long term stability.

On the flip side a pure communist system favors the lazy since there is little to no reward for doing more than the minimum. That is to say the status quo is unchanging.

This is why we have government, to correct the selfish nature of capitalism, while hopefully still retaining the innovation and drive that it produces (winner take all is a strong motivator).

This only works in the long term if government is fair and balanced, looking out both for the interests of business and society (the poor, the environment, the common spaces, etc). And where an idea like socialism actually strikes a good balance between both extremes.

The idea that the markets will sort themselves out is a fever dream thought up by the right. The markets will quickly consolidate into monopolies and then exploit there power. It is only fair competition that produces benefits. And that is an unstable balance that must be carefully maintained by outside forces (government).

I think people in this thread is generally see capitalism as the reason for inequity and people's misfortune with medical bills etc. As a resident of a Scandinavian country this strike me as odd. All Scandinavian countries are for sure capitalistic but we pay high taxes and get for instance free education, free healthcare, retirement pension etc. in return. The opposite to this is not capitalism, but liberalism, in the sense that society should stay out of people's business and "freedom above everything else". Countries where things goes to hell need to give up some freedom to benefit the greater good which I'm turn is going to help themselves.

The Fediverse is dominated by hackers, who by their nature are incompatible with existing systems such as capitalism.

People have different definitions of capitalism, and cound different side effects into that definition.

While you are correct in your claims, it does look like you are not seeing negative effects it has on society and economy.

Similar thing happens with the other side, they usually put criminal activities (like corporations poisoning people) into definition of capitalism or they directly blame it for that kind effect on humans.

I think that is just not really accepting the nature of humans.

Shit will happen in every *isam and each one will be good for something.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge everything that we see as bad, and there is no need to make those classifications.

It is like politics, looks like you can not be for lower taxes and support same sex marriage at the same time, even thou there are people with those options.