Capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn’t work in real life. It’s just human nature. These academics talk about supply and demand curves, but after hundreds of years they still can’t even provide evidence that one exists. I’d love it if markets were free and efficient. It would make society so simple and everyone would get what they needed most. But people aren’t robots, you know? They don’t consume rationally and all the money ends up going to the guys at the top who use it to make themselves more powerful. It’s called tragedy of the commons. Markets can start out efficient, but people steal shit and force people to stop competing, which fucks the markets up even more.


Plus rich people have every incentive to corrupt the system through “lobbying” and other forms of legal bribery.


Unlike the revolutionary political innovations of the 20th century, capitalism didn’t first exist on paper before being put into practice. It evolved out of the ways in which people in growing societies naturally interacted when exchanging goods and services.

Once a society starts accepting tokens as a representation of economic effort - be they conch shells, precious metals or government-backed IOUs - mechanisms will emerge whereby the tokens become unevenly distributed, and with that the power the tokens hold.

The fact that i capitalism has evolved from natural behaviour means it has strength, that it is fit for purpose. It doesn’t mean it’s perfect though, in particular it does not mean it is just. The question is can we, as humans who are ourselves products of evolution, do better?

It seems to me that when it comes to life, there is one rule of nature that underpins all others - the strong have dominion over the weak. In relation to the current economic status quo, how can we prevent the strong becoming so strong that the weak become their slaves?


The answer is you cant. Slavery is the natural endpoint of the current economic system.

That is not even a rule of nature though btw, “strong” and “weak” are meaningless. Its about ‘fitness’ and that doesn’t always mean the same thing. Its about proliferation but also balance with the rest of the ecosystem.


If strong and weak are meaningless, then so is fitness - in the context of genes, evolution selects genes which give their owner greater chance of reproducing, therefore causing those genes to survive over many generations. In other words, “survival of the fittest” merely says “those best at surviving will survive”.

There is also no requirement, in nature, to be in balance with the environment. The fossil record tells countless tales of species which have caused their own downfall by over-exploiting the environment.

The point I’m trying to make is that we can’t look to nature for guidance on morality. It can be easy to daydream of days gone by, when we humans lived peacefully in smaller groups, in harmony with nature, happily singing songs in the firelight. Those times never really existed - there was no harmony with nature, nature is red in tooth and claw, and we have always had to steal our survival by spilling the blood of others. Never was that blood freely given.

So we can’t find easy answers in nature, we can’t simply step back to a rosy-tinted past of harmony, we have to move forward. We have to take what we have, look objectively at its faults, and equally its benefits, and strive to make small incremental changes to push the system towards one which is more fair and just.

Yep I agree, but funnily enough I also agree on the same point with regards to Communism. Both are actually good ideals in paper, but the way humans used and abused them made both look pretty bad.

Today I fell we are battling with power hungry politicians more than anything else… There are a few politicians who want to really help society and represent their people etc, but there are a lot of rotten apples out there and once voted in they use their power through advertising etc to corrupt the system.

In theory there should be checks and balances for any political system, but they were not designed for deliberate corruption from within.

The “commumism is only good on paper” argument is genuinely one of the most frustrating pieces of recent propaganda, especially when it’s followed by some vague capitulation to “human nature”. Anyone can state that and act as if they just made some poignant argument when in reality they haven’t said anything at all. It’s an argument made with no actual understanding of either communism or capitalism, tbh.

I don’t mean to rag on you in particular, it’s just frustrating hearing the same thing over and over again, especially things that Communists themselves have been addressing for a long time, like in the case of human nature.

Here’s a past comment of mine on the topic of human nature

I wasn’t picking on Communism at all - I’m highlighting this as I noticed it first with Capitalism that was always held in such high esteem in Western countries. The ideals of Capitalism may be a fine motivating factor but its human greed and corruption now that has dragged it through the mud. So it is more an observation about human nature I was making across the board. It’s not intended to be an argument for or against any political system - more again humans than anything else. Humans have caused more devastation to themselves, animals, the environment, etc than anything else. I’d support an anti-human political system but I’m not sure we have one ;-)


Eco-fascists are a thing. You sound like one too.


First of all, don’t assume that what we are experiencing is the capitalism in his lassie faire form, in fact there is an allwais increasing regulation (see milton’s friedman show free to choose to have a sense of how fast the regulations grew in US, but is the same everywhere you have an state)

Read some austrian economics (human action talk in line about what you say regarding suppy & demand curves) to have a different perspective about what capitalism really is (non mathematical economics)

But please, don’t base you current opinion on the sh*t that is selled by the states as “capitalism” just go to the core, I’m sure you will at leas find it different of what you know


The US form IS what happens. Capitalism will ALWAYS devolve into monopolies that impose strict regulations preventing other competition from surviving. That’s the end state of the equilibrium.


If you are against strict regulations that prevents other for compeating, then we are both on the same side my friend, but let me tell you that your definition of capitalism is contaminated.

What it is Capitalism is laisse faire or it isn capitalis Capitalism is unregulated or it isn capitalism Capitalism is “voluntary exchanges” (not only limited to the market)

What it is not Rules imposed by force, by the state “”“”“Entrepreneurs”“”“”“” using his/her ínfluence to change state rules in his/her favour State regulations in general.

You are indeed right if you say that the current sistem will end up in the equilibrium state you point out. When you have an state they will inevitably try to convince us that they are 100% necessary to “tame” the market and corporations.

Do you really and honestly want to see a tiny bit of what capitalism is? Take a look at Cospaia (Italy) in the years 1440 to 1826 and tell me what you think

capitalism questions and discussion

    Capitalism: The great western experiment that has proven the most humane, peaceful and fair of all government models.

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 2 users / week
    • 3 users / month
    • 16 users / 6 months
    • 18 subscribers
    • 9 Posts
    • Modlog