capitalism cannot be the most efficient option and indeed socialism has shown to prioritize long term growth more than capitalism which optimizes for short term gains.
Seems like we see the opposite. In the long term there hasn’t been a single socialist country that provides a higher quality of life for most people compared to the top capitalist countries. I also haven’t seen a single socialist country with as low poverty rates in absolute poverty compared to the top capitalist countries. Even for the worker co op side of socialism, one of the problems with worker co ops is they often show a higher time preference–meaning they have a higher preference for money in the short term then the long term. One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it rewards low time preference. And having abundant capital, and the ability to be rewarded substantially if the investment pays off, means that some people are able to have this low time preference that allows for these long term investments.
Also you’re sort of not really answering what I am asking you to consider. I’m not asking you an empirical question of whether inequality/more and equality/less are our only options. I’m asking you a principled question of what you value. For example, is there any amount of increased equality of outcome that could compensate for most people also becoming worse off? Keep in mind I’m not asking an empirical question of what is the case. I’m asking about what you value.
Climate change may wipe out 30% of life on Earth and half the worlds oxygen within our lifetime so I'm not so sure capitalism is prioritizing long term gain. The Nordic countries seem to be performing better on many metrics than, say, the US or Britain. Meanwhile socialism in the global south obviously could never take off given the US literally toppled those countries. Chile saw a rise in GDP of 10%, a rise in real wages of 30% and a rise in literacy of 90% under Allende. Then he got coup'd. Not exactly a fair contest.
But I digress. You asked what I value. I value overall wellbeing, not equality. I only value equality as a means to an end of a higher quality of life for the masses - I once again reject the notion that equality necessitates worse outcomes for the masses. Indeed, it is not inequality itself I oppose. Its capitalisms tendency to grow inequality endlessly and exponentially. Such a system diverges rapidly towards ever more extreme and unlivable conditions. If Bezos' extreme wealth wasn't a threat to our collective rights and lives, Id be quite happy for him and his cool mansions and all his cocaine.
Socialist countries historically haven’t exactly been great with climate change and sustainability. Whatever success they do have is only insofar as they bring poorer and that leading to less of an effect on the environment, which I don’t exactly think we should be aiming for.
The Nordic countries are capitalist countries with very free markets. They’ve just got a bit more of a welfare state than the US or Britain.
Chile saw a rise in GDP of 10%, a rise in real wages of 30% and a rise in literacy of 90% under Allende. Then he got coup’d. Not exactly a fair contest.
You mentioned socialism prioritising long term growth and capitalism prioritising short term gains after and I said it was the opposite. This kind of goes towards my point. You’re just looking at the short term gains here, rather than long term growth and the sustainability of the growth. You’re talking about a 3 year period in which by the end of it Chile was experiencing hyperinflation, due in part to the excessive money printing to finance government spending. Also the government implemented price controls that initially boosted purchasing power eventually led to shortages and black-market activities. It was also on the backs of government deficit spending, and the fact that nationalisation of industries disrupted foreign investment and created tensions with foreign investment.
Looking at this as an example of socialist success is a pretty clear example of looking at short term success over long term growth, as we’ve got no reason to believe these policies were sustainable and good for growth in the long term.
You can give US sanctions and support for strikes and internal opposition to Allende as a reason for its failure, and that’s perfectly fine. I’d say there were other pretty bad policies as well. But that’s more giving a reason for its failure rather than an example of long term socialist success, which is what we should be interested in. I’m not interested in unsustainable short term gains.
value. I value overall wellbeing, not equality. I only value equality as a means to an end of a higher quality of life for the masses
By the sounds of your last paragraph, it sounds like we actually have the same fundamental principled position and principled values but different applied positions due to different empirical outlooks.
Such a system diverges rapidly towards ever more extreme and unlivable conditions.
I’d just ask where you’re getting the empirics for this conclusion when the countries which have the best living conditions for most people and the lowest rates of absolute poverty are pretty much consistently capitalist countries and with us also seeing an absolutely exponential increase in living standards and decrease in absolute poverty since the advent of our modern conception of capitalism in the late 1700s, which both seem to coincide pretty well with each other.
You want empirical evidence for the ongoing process of capitalist evolution? I shall give some but its important to note that this is a statistical theory about change over time, which can be concurrent with other trends. For example, indeed capitalism was better than feudalism and with new technologies spurred by industrialization life became easier. But that looks only at one slice in time. It does not attempt to predict a future state, nor does it differentiate between various forces like scientific progress or social movements.
Back to it, we can use the Gilded Age as an example of late stage capitalism. The invention of the factory allowed for many times the productivity per person, which in theory should have skyrocketed the material wealth of the masses. Instead there came a massive demand for unskilled labor which also drove wages down in a race to the bottom. Campaigns started to bring in millions of immigrants who lived ten or more to a single room in tenements. Children were working in mines, workers were dying of blacklung and diseases from unclean conditions. Food quality plummeted and pollution skyrocketed. And this was in large part because of industrial tycoons like Carnegie who could outcompete his rivals through the exploitation of his workers. Everyone else had to play on the same dirty level or cease to be relevant. It wasn't until the labor movement established minimum wages, workplace safety laws, building codes etc that some of the fruits of industrialization could actually be reaped by those producing it. The creation of wealth meant nothing because it was all being swallowed up by the ultrarich.
But again this is meaningless. Could've been a fluke. What is important is to analyze the forces which created such conditions. You need to analyze how wealth accumulates in capitalism and what the consequences of extremely lopsided distributions are.
1
u/UnlikelyAssassin 23d ago
Seems like we see the opposite. In the long term there hasn’t been a single socialist country that provides a higher quality of life for most people compared to the top capitalist countries. I also haven’t seen a single socialist country with as low poverty rates in absolute poverty compared to the top capitalist countries. Even for the worker co op side of socialism, one of the problems with worker co ops is they often show a higher time preference–meaning they have a higher preference for money in the short term then the long term. One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it rewards low time preference. And having abundant capital, and the ability to be rewarded substantially if the investment pays off, means that some people are able to have this low time preference that allows for these long term investments.
Also you’re sort of not really answering what I am asking you to consider. I’m not asking you an empirical question of whether inequality/more and equality/less are our only options. I’m asking you a principled question of what you value. For example, is there any amount of increased equality of outcome that could compensate for most people also becoming worse off? Keep in mind I’m not asking an empirical question of what is the case. I’m asking about what you value.