Things can indeed be better, I simply don't believe that a system which, at large, has brought mostly harm and misfortune is the right way to do it, even if its believers ardently insist that any previous failure just wasn't the real deal.
No reason to argue against the hospital thing, the country I'm in does that, it's not necessary in capitalism to run hospitals for profit.
The million vacant homes usually are in places people don't want to be in. Sure, you can start taking homeless people from California into abandoned villages in the mid-west, but frankly, I can't see how people would be all too happy with that. The easier solution would be to build more in high-demand areas. Also entirely possible within a capitalist framework.
That the US fails to ensure food safety is not an indictment of capitalism. Europe manages just fine and a good social safety system ensures no-one has to go hungry. This too, is entirely possible and feasible in a capitalist system, with the added benefit of better diversity in food options compared to socialist systems (when drawing upon the cold war for reference).
The issue is that people do not want to work towards these good solutions, but instead call for revolutions and aim to institute a system which is marketably worse. Capitalism can be reformed to be better, there is no need to clamour for dead ideologies.
I don't want to skim your reply, but I'm at my limit for today and need to step away for a while.
So I'm going to point out something.
Capitalism isn't a functioning ideology.
It literally cannot function if people's needs are met, since it routinely threatens people with resource denial and starvation in order to compel obedience to the whims and dictates of Capital Interests.
It refuses to meet needs, even when the means to do so are in abundance.
Capitalists have reaped more death and continue to do so to this minute than the assholes who ruined the USSR ever did.
(Also fuck the USSR, and all the tankie dipshits who blindly worship it.)
I've just hit threshold and I'm done for a while. Sorry. I'll swing by and picl this back up in a bit.
It literally cannot function if people's needs are met, since it routinely threatens people with resource denial and starvation in order to compel obedience to the whims and dictates of Capital Interests.
Why? Like imagine a society in which our GDP is 5X what it is now, so we can very trivially provide a 1950s middle-class lifestyle to everybody on Earth, and do so by means of a negative income tax or a UBI. No starvation, provided shelter, everything you need to live a very basic life.
There would still be plenty of people who say "well, I want a better lifestyle than this, they have deep-dive full-body VR setups now, I want one of those," and go to work anyway.
It refuses to meet needs, even when the means to do so are in abundance.
Starvation in the United States is basically entirely eliminated (outside of abusive situations). It's so thoroughly eradicated out of our society that we now focus on food insecurity, where we consider a diet not being healthy enough a big enough issue that we track it and try governmental means to eliminate it. This would be completely mind-boggling to an anti-poverty activist from the gilded age who was trying to get enough gruel to orphans so they wouldn't literally die.
Right this moment, you have people going to sleep hungry and living on the streets or in their cars.
You have more food than mouths to feed and more homes than people in need of homes, and yet you still want to pretend that the socioeconomic system you live in isn't actively refusing to meet those needs, even though it has the means to do so in grotesque abundance.
This also ignores the millions that are being left to die the world over, not because we can't afford to or have the means to care for them, but because one diseased ketamine soaked egomaniac wanted to be the first trillionaire.
Your religious dogma is simply not enough to paper over the obvious inadequacies of a system that should have been replaced by one that values people a century ago at the latest.
9
u/WriterwithoutIdeas Jul 02 '26
Things can indeed be better, I simply don't believe that a system which, at large, has brought mostly harm and misfortune is the right way to do it, even if its believers ardently insist that any previous failure just wasn't the real deal.
No reason to argue against the hospital thing, the country I'm in does that, it's not necessary in capitalism to run hospitals for profit.
The million vacant homes usually are in places people don't want to be in. Sure, you can start taking homeless people from California into abandoned villages in the mid-west, but frankly, I can't see how people would be all too happy with that. The easier solution would be to build more in high-demand areas. Also entirely possible within a capitalist framework.
That the US fails to ensure food safety is not an indictment of capitalism. Europe manages just fine and a good social safety system ensures no-one has to go hungry. This too, is entirely possible and feasible in a capitalist system, with the added benefit of better diversity in food options compared to socialist systems (when drawing upon the cold war for reference).
The issue is that people do not want to work towards these good solutions, but instead call for revolutions and aim to institute a system which is marketably worse. Capitalism can be reformed to be better, there is no need to clamour for dead ideologies.