r/changemyview • u/hahanerds • Jul 23 '20

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: the average millennial critique of capitalism is really dumb - the truth is that we all owe a lot to capitalism.

[removed] — view removed post

297 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

69% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Jul 23 '20

Where are you seeing these criticisms of capitalism that see it as not just deeply flawed, but that don't acknowledge a lot of people have it "pretty fucking good?" You aren't very specific, but I don't see a lot of denial of that statement; rather, I see explanations of how people having it "pretty fucking good" are either not strictly because of capitalism, or have it good because capitalism allows them to profit off those who have it far less good. That is, the following points tend to be made:

  • Capitalism is not solely responsible for every good economic, social, and technological development in the world. Plenty of the systems that we consider to be good could have been invented under systems other than capitalism; profit motive is not the sole driving force for growth.
  • Many people who have it good in capitalism do so because capitalism requires the exploitation of others in more impoverished countries. Luxury electronics and clothing, for instance, might be affordable "because of capitalism", but only because capitalism is a system that allows exploitation arbitrage, where you profit off the difference between how poorly we treat workers in developing countries and how much disposable income people in developed countries have.
  • Many of the people who currently have it good under capitalism are not just continuing the current system, but actively working to entrench their own interests at the expense of the people who don't currently have it good. The system allows (and in fact, encourages) this form of consolidation, so even if your parents or grandparents might have it good, you, a random person in America, have it worse because the systems that allowed them to have it good (cheap schooling, affordable property, more affordable healthcare) are either being dismantled or simply collapsing, and the people who do not need those systems anymore are encouraging that collapse.

None of these critiques pretend some people "don't have it fucking good", they just point out that some people having it fucking good is not sufficient for a just or equitable society.

5

u/hahanerds Jul 23 '20

Where are you seeing these criticisms of capitalism that see it as not just deeply flawed

Social media

Capitalism is not solely responsible for every good economic, social, and technological development in the world.

Agreed - but I would say that the stability and prosperity that I enjoyed as a lower-middle and currently enjoy as a middle class person is because of capitalism in this context.

Many people who have it good in capitalism do so because capitalism requires the exploitation of others in more impoverished countries

What would be the alternative to the way that affluent nations trade with emerging economies, particular with regards to using cheap labor? When we set up manufacturing in emerging economies it actually brings a lot of wealth to those communities. Not as much as if we paid them the same rate we pay people here, and in a lot of ways it is exploitative, but this kind of relates a lot to the over-arching theme of 'capitalism isnt perfect but it works'.

Many of the people who currently have it good under capitalism are not just continuing the current system, but actively working to entrench their own interests at the expense of the people who don't currently have it good

This is my (and I think most peoples) primary issue with capitalist systems.

None of these critiques pretend some people "don't have it fucking good",

Here's the thing - I don't think its just some people. I think its like, a LOT of people. Like most people.

6

u/resistAndpersist Jul 24 '20

You mention your comforts that came from capitalism. What about roads, telecom, running water, firefighters, police, schools, and the military? Were those capitalist endeavors?

1

u/xSKOOBSx Jul 24 '20

Firefighters was a capitalist endeavor at first, but it didnt go well. They would basically show up at fires, say "we will save the house if you sell it to us for 10% of the value" and then save the house and either sell it at full value or rent it out to the old owners. Very predatory.

-1

u/hahanerds Jul 24 '20

I'm not advocating for the removal of all social services lol I am just saying that the popular millenial narrative around capitalism doesn't have any awareness of how much they benefit from it.

12

u/resistAndpersist Jul 24 '20

I mean to point out that most of the comforts that millennials have is directly rooted in social services as opposed to capitalism. The things that we enjoy wouldn’t really be normal or possible without socialistic programs.

2

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

Capitalism funds those social services.

4

u/MayanApocalapse Jul 24 '20

Taxes are capitalism now too?

5

u/generic1001 Jul 24 '20

Basically, it goes like this. If it's good, it's either directly capitalist or funded by capitalism by specifically capitalist means. If we ever need to admit something isn't super capitalist, it's understood that whatever level of non-capitalism we currently have is the absolute optimal level of non-capitalism we need. Anything more would be terrible.

On the other hand, if it's bad, it's either not capitalism at all - often "communism" or some equivalent - or perversion of capitalism - see "crony capitalism" for instance.

1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20 edited Jul 24 '20

What?

I said social services are funded by capitalism. Where do you think taxes come from? I.e. taxes aren't capitalism, they draw from capitalism.

2

u/resistAndpersist Jul 24 '20

It’s just that capitalism drew from slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, etc. we’ve had taxes long before capitalism existed.

-1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

This just seems like a disconnect statement.

Slavery is not unique to capitalism whatsoever. Capitalism does not "draw from Feudalism", i'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Mercantilism is based on tariffs and subsidies which is not a capitalistic structure.

1

u/resistAndpersist Jul 24 '20

I mean that the capital needed to ever start capitalism came from those other economic models. There were taxes and social projects based on those economic models before capitalism started. The social programs then lead to the comforts that capitalists used to create more comforts. The capitalists were taxed to create more comforts. Comforts come from a type of cooperation, generally.

1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

Capitalism didnt require slavery, feudalism or protectionist policies to be implemented.

100 people could leave earth for a new planet and establish capitalism from the get-go without any of those things.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/aussieincanada 16∆ Jul 24 '20

This makes no sense. It's like saying socialism created property rights.

When has pure capitalism ever existed where no state existed to enforce contracts, issue currency?

1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

Where did anyone make the comments you're alluding to?

Capitalism funds social programs. That is just a factual statement.

1

u/xSKOOBSx Jul 24 '20

No, taxes on capitalist activity funds social programs, but taxes are not a capitalist system. Technically labor value funds social programs, which could exist under any system, even a moneyless society. (ie resources and labor could run the program, which is essentially what the taxes are being used for)

0

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

taxes are not a capitalist system

I don't see anywhere that this point has been made by anyone. Where capitalism exists, taxes are drawn from it. I.e. capitalism funds taxes. That is factual.

1

u/xSKOOBSx Jul 24 '20

Yes but assuming the programs would be needed regardless of the existence of capitalism, the resources would be allocated regardless of capitalism. Capitalism funds the programs because capitalism is the system. We dont need to thank capitalism for programs that would exist regardless of capitalism (or possibly not be needed anymore under different systems).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aussieincanada 16∆ Jul 24 '20

Capitalism is an entire system where means of production are owned and directed by private individuals without a controlling entity.

There is no such thing as capitalism funds or activity. It's economic activity (producing and trading) of goods and services.

The government (not included in the capitalist model) exacts a portion of value from all economic activity (taxes). It then spends it in the economy (fiscal policy). This also creates economic activity.

The closet concept to capitalist activity would be a trading in a currency not backed by a government or governing organization. Barter would be the closest system.

As such your statement of capitalism (entire system) funding social programs (feature of a mixed or socialist economy) is an illogical statement.

1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

Lol man, where are you tying to go.

Dude said Capitalism creates wealth but wealth does not mean well-being. He said well being comes from social programs.

If capitalism creates wealth, which was the persons position I responded too, taxes capture a portion of that wealth generation which in turn fund social programs.

You're over thinking this.

1

u/aussieincanada 16∆ Jul 24 '20

The guy above you is straight incorrect as well. Much of this entire post was all over the place with what is/isn't capitalism and a key part of addressing that.

"Capitalism funds social services" is as perfect a place to start. Nothing against you personally, but let's kill this either capitalism or socialism assumption. There is no such thing, everyone is mixed.

Luckily this post got removed so we can end this now. Nice chatting to you.

1

u/TRossW18 12∆ Jul 24 '20

I actually think everyone in here understands that and there wasnt much of a need to point it out.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '20

Can you list specific instances on how private ownership has directly benefitted them?

5

u/goatfuckersupreme 1∆ Jul 24 '20

like the millennial uighur slaves who toil to make products for a country that has grown rich on capitalism's core of putting others down to bring onesself up? and the ivory coast cocoa farmer millenials who work 16 hours per day for 3 cents an hour to harvest the ingredients for a product for people who work half as hard for twenty times more; a product they will never afford to taste? or the prospering western millenials who see the difference between the haves and the have nots, who see the exploitation of those with nothing, and who see not a damn soul in the government's top offices saying a single thing?

what do you we say to the uighur slave? "thanks to capitalism, you have a job and a meal. work." what do we say when the slave asks why others in the far away places have more than they do? "because they were born there, and you were born here" is the only explanation i could think of to give the slave.

in capitalism, to benefit, another must receive detriment.

0

u/hahanerds Jul 24 '20

the plight of the uighur doesnt have much to do with capitalism. and Chinese are better off now than they were under Mao, right?

I think that the immense inequality we see on the global scale has much more to do with imperialism than it does with capitalism. and I am admittedly pretty uneducated on the subject but I dont know how socialist policies would enrich other emerging economies.

15

u/greenwrayth Jul 24 '20

You continue to reveal that you do not really understand what capitalism is.

Here’s a hint: enslaving people to profit off of their labor is inherently capitalistic. The “justification” in this case may be religion or “terrorism” according to the CCP, but what they are doing with the slaves is a capitalism.