I hate capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

This thread David Graeber: On The Phenomenon Of BS Jobs is one of the reasons I think we have to find something better than capitalism.

You can't get rid of BS jobs because if you do, you'll have a ton of people out of work with all the economic and social problems that follow.

More and more I see the way a capitalist economy actively resists change to better ways of doing things and slows progress.

Here's an example of that I noticed just this morning. In the UK, everyone drives their kid to school. It's a massive ball-ache because the roads are horrendous at that hour (due to all the people driving their kids to school), there's nowhere to park at the school (because 200-odd cars are arriving at the same time) and everyone is stressed and miserable.

The US has a better system, if their popular culture is to be believed - those yellow buses that take kids to school.

We cannot adopt this system and one of the reasons is that the fuel retail industry would take a massive hit. Also the private minibus rental industry would suffer if schools had access to their own buses for trips. There are people who's entire existence is dependent on this profoundly inefficient system.

Our air could be cleaner, our roads less congested, our lives simpler and less stressful, but we can't do it because capitalism.

There are so many examples of this sort of inefficiency in our daily lives, I find it maddening.

People picture capitalism as this brutal behemoth, stomping over everything, but I find it weird how fragile it is, how it needs to be constantly protected from better ideas and solutions.

I hate it, too. We need to destroy capitalism. once and for all. Anyone arguing otherwise is either a capitalist themself, or has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by this insidious capitalistic system that their ability to actually think and see the system for what it really is has been greatly diminished.

This isn't true.

The US has the issue of lots of people living a very long way from school and no public transport. School buses become almost necessary.

In the UK, schools are smaller and tend to serve a local area. Most primary school children walk to school (although only just, it seems). In secondary school, only 35% are driven (pre-pandemic). Secondary schools sometimes have school buses, but it depends. Where I grew up, a secondary school closed down, and the nearest school was over-subscribed, so lots of children had to travel past that school to get to the under-subscribed school. Because there were lots of people going the same way, a bus route from the old school to the new one made sense. There are also a lot of school buses in outer London, but regular buses still get a lot of school children on them.

The UK fuel industry is certainly going to take a big hit. All new vehicles will have to be zero-emission by 2035, and the only reason it won't be sooner is because it will take time for production of electric vehicles to be high enough.

Very few people rent minibuses to get their kids to school, not least because it would be very financially inefficient.

But again, what you're describing is not a capitalism problem. For one thing, capitalism is generally opposed to the protection of uncompetitive industries. Generally speaking, the more critical someone is of capitalism, the more they tend to support government intervention to protect industry. (This is an area with a lot of nuance but I don't want to get into it unnecessarily). But under any system, if you decide that you don't want to e.g. make steel anymore then it's going to hurt the people who make steel. If the price of fuel goes up it is going to hurt people who use fuel.

We do share resources; unequally, but resources are shared. The two economic systems are called equal and unequal distribution. Neither works in pure form. The most benevolent parents will not share wealth equally with toddlers. The most brutal dictator will ensure those close to him are well paid.I am a capitalist.  I make the system work for me.  Those who WILL NOT make the system work for themselves are likely too lazy to want to, or they have made the choice to not participate in a Capitalist economy.  However, those who CANNOT work the system deserve support through subsidies, charity, and handouts.

Destroy capitalism and drive everyone into poverty -- no means of production, no means of income, no distribution of wealth, and no wealth to distribute.

Simple, eh?

How would you go about destroying capitalism? How is it fair to equally share resources to people who don't work for example too?

Those who can't work, like Fnord said, should be entitled to the essentials immediately but like I said earlier, a lot of communists don't want to work and don't want to contribute which ironically puts them at a huge disadvantage in a communist state. The last group of people you would want in a state where all resources are shared are entitled, jealous and lazy people which is what many Communist are.

As Lennin said, if you don't work you don't eat.

I find it even more amusing that the typical capitalist will probably cope fairly OK in a communist state. The only people left standing in a cut throat communist state will probably be those who done, or would do well in a capitalist state.

It's important that anyone who supports such systems take a look as to how they might personally cope if they were to actually end up in that system. Would you, me or anyone else fair OK during the worst times of the Soviet Union for example? I would probably survive and I'm used to racking up a lot of hours in work, many others however will find themselves on the wrong end of a purge if they can't do those hours in work.

I don't see how a political opinion would make somebody lazy.

Over the years I've seen some people who support communist publically state they refuse to ever work because doing so will make them a cog in the capitalist machine.

You can use the state to control corporations except when they are state owned corporations. In such cases the state cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

State ownership is ideal for utilities such as electricity or public transport. The troubles begin with countries that call themselves communist that are state capitalist. When getting your toaster fixed is a matter of state, you end up with a situation where the head of state and the CEO are the same man. This is an even worse situation than the CEO bribing the head of state. There's no need for bribary when they're the same man.

Why would someone who doesn't like to work want to join the worker's state? That would be like someone who hates chocolate wanting to live in the land of chocolate.

The USA is full of people who think they are capitalists, but have no capital.

so many naive 'muuuricans think they can be rich not knowing that the odds are utterly stacked against them. it is these folks who are propping up a corrupt system.

As any reasonable person should.

They think sucking up to capitalists will gain them capital or at least favoritism from those with capital, poor naive people.

Truth is millenials do want to work they just want to be paid in wages that allow them to maintain a roof over their head and perhaps at least some amount of food. And god forbid the occasional night out. Plus half of us would be happy to see capitalism end, but in the meantime we still have rent to pay.

capitalism is designed to work only for capitalists [those born with entrepreneurial intelligence]. and capitalists wonder why some of the working class are disenchanted.

I'm working class and a capitalist. It's all panned out quite well for me.