367

submitted 6 months ago by federalreverse@feddit.de to c/196

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] cuchilloc@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We’ve always been… a government subsidizing most of our livelihoods, constantly borrowing more money and producing deficit every day/month/year could not be sustained indefinitely. Could there be a better path to a sustainable economy? For sure. But we are paying what was long due, the unpaid humongous check of “the good guys”.

[-] federalreverse@feddit.de 34 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Capitalist economies are not sustainable. That's kind of their point: Line goes up, even though resources are finite (which economists conveniently ignore). Hence, they can't be sustained ad infinitum. We're all borrowing/stealing from somewhere, including from nature. (And the harder we believe in capitalism, the faster humanity will crash because resources are getting used up.)

Ultimately, money is a means to an end anyway: Making sure society functions well enough that everyone has food and shelter. Other than that, it's just imaginary figures.

[-] cuchilloc@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Hmm I want to see your point . Trying really hard, but: have you lived in an absolutely corrupt society like Argentina? Then, have you thought about “line goes up” is not only material resources, but any idea, tech product, or sustainable product, can make it also go up ? Also… amount of people… on top of that… our precious “socialist” govt was not pushing for anything sustainable… only filling their pockets while claiming to be helping people, making people less educated on purpose, so they cannot survive without a “present state”. I’m not religious but I like holding cliches as axioms, and one I really like is: teach a man how to fish… If I extrapolate your train of thought to the maximum, basically we should all commit suicide as to not deplete earths resources. So, what is exactly your point if you do not mind rephrasing it? What is good vs bad in your terms? I love sustainability, small communal govts where corruption can be refereed and prevented , not a humongous federal beast where “one rule fits all” ensures life will never be in the best interest of the people. But please, put yourself in the shoes of reality. It’s not capitalism vs something else . If it were for me, I’d live in anarchy, but that also presents some other troubles. We all want what we believe it’s best for humanity as a whole, we just focus or see different solutions or advantages first . Or some pro vs con weigh differently on different people. I do not stand by any politician, I find that good can be done outside of state , and taxes to be a form of accepted feudalism . I do not believe capitalism to be inherently evil and doomed to fail; I believe all systems can be used for the good, if we leave greed aside, and I also do not think that capitalism==greed. It’s like saying guns kill people, when people kill people. It’s a cultural and mindset shift that needs to happen, not necessarily the system is forcing it on anyone . We can disagree and be fine. But I’d like to try and understand your point.

[-] Mustard 17 points 6 months ago

Your point is not very coherent, I'm struggling to understand you due to how much you've written and the lack of formatting.

Some brief things to pick out:

Corruption is not just a socialist thing it's everywhere. India has huge corruption problems and is capitalist.
Taxes are not 'accepted feudalism' they are the basis of communal living. Even anarcho-capitalists recognise the need for roads and farming subsidies.
You're right that good can be done in any system but the idea of all of this is to find a system that encourages good and discourages greed. If we could rely only on everyone just deciding to be good there would be no need for any politics. You'll notice this has never happened in millions of years of human existence.

[-] cuchilloc@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

corruption is a power difference thing — the system is not the problem, but socialist governments want more power over more things (more power difference, easier access to corruption ); again : this is just my opinion and we should respect our disagreements instead of downvoting :( I thought Lemmy was an inclusive place .
farms should not be subsidized IMHO, maybe give farmers interest free loans instead
roads can be mantained and paid for by private parties, what’s wrong with a dirt road? Let’s build trains instead .
last point: we agree

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

Not who you replied to, but there is a massive misconception here that must be addressed.

Socialist governments shift power from unaccountable, anti-democratic Capitalists to a more democratically accountable state. This is not an "easier access to corruption," but a removal of that which corruption was assumed as a given. Additionally, by rejecting the profit motive, you remove lobbying and other methods by which the wealthy shape and shift the state, corruption itself is minimized.

Your assumption that Capitalists are somehow not corrupt when exploitation is a requirement for there to be a Capitalist is the key issue here.

[-] Mustard 4 points 6 months ago

Thanks for the formatting, helps me a lot. I'll do my best to have the discussion you want.

If it's your opinion it's your opinion. I don't think that 'wanting more power over more things' is something inherent to socialism. All governments take power over things when they think it's necessary. A particularly controversial example would be abortion restrictions. That is an extreme intrusion by a government into the literal organs of its citizens but to a religious capitalist it makes sense. Need more workers and more consumers after all.
I don't see that there's any meaningful difference between an interest free loan and a subsidy. Say the farmers don't pay up and ask for another loan, are you gonna starve on principle?
Lots is wrong with dirt roads, they're just inefficient. So much money and resource spent on fixing and maintaining vehicle suspensions and the extra time needed to go slowly which is all unnecessary with a proper road. I love trains but they can't do everything, we're not running tracks to every home in order for the mail train to come deliver your package etc.

As for private parties, this is also just the least efficient way to do things. Roads need to be compatible with each other, have the same spacings the same areas for communal services like electricity water and gas and so on. Who's gonna enforce all that with no profit motive? It would have to be a government entity, at which point the government might as well just build the roads in the first place and charge everyone a general usage fee, but since it's a government this is called 'Road tax' and is already implemented in most European countries. This isn't even socialism it's just the basics of what governments are for: taking care of 'societal chores'.