You're viewing a single thread.
No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.
Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.
Pyramid schemes don't have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.
A hexagon!
They're zero sum because money is being exchanged, but the person losing money isn't getting anything in return for the exchange. Someone is just stealing from someone else (one person loses, anotber gains). No matter how many people are added to the scheme the mechanics remain the same.
An economy, be it a capitalist or communist one, involves the exchange of money but in exchange for goods and services. Both parties of the transaction gain from it.
Now, it could be argued that the wrong people gain the most from capitalism. That's another argument. But the system isn't zero sum, the way a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme is.
To all your guys huffing and puffing, I'm not passing moral judgment (here) about communism or capitalism. I'm just saying that any economic system involving trade is not zero sum the way a Ponzi-scheme is.
I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can't really make money if you aren't making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.
Generally the idea is that both parties need to benefit from any transaction if it is voluntary.
When you have to eat and the means to feed ourselves is held by few, no transaction is voluntary.
Of course it's voluntary. You choose what you buy, when you do it, how much and from whom.
If someone held you on gunpoint and told you to buy their product, that would be involuntary.
You can choose what, when, how much, and from whom, but you are still are still forced to do so. Choosing which person puts me at gunpoint doesn't make it voluntary
You can also feed yourself by growing food or hunting. Neither of those are banned, just more inconvenient and you probably have some other skills to sell and buy food instead
I can only do so on land that I purchased. Or on someone else's land I purchased the right to do so on
Then do that, or choose not to.
If I choose not to I die. I can buy the food from someone who already has it, I can buy the right to make my own food, or I can choose to starve to death
Or hunt on public land.
That costs money. I have to buy the right to hunt on public land or I go to prison for poaching
Can I interest you in CWA (Crackers With Attitude)'s Fuck The DNR?
You are forced to buy food, shelter, healthcare, a vehicle (US). You are forced therefore to have a job to pay for these things. Employers know this, and suppress wages with those together, the proverbial gun.
Generally speaking, slavery is also benefitial to both parties, you're either a slave out you get killed. While technically voluntary (because a slave can still choose stand up to the oppressor, even if it's guaranteed to fail) we don't consider slavery voluntary. We can say that in this day and age our work is voluntary, but it's debatable.
You can look to this year how "voluntary" it is when the Hollywood execs literally said they will wait for the protesters to starve so they'd get back to work. When there's such a severe power dynamic it becomes almost no different to slavery, because you, individually, can be effectively forced back to work. The only reason Hollywood protests have any chance to have impact is because they collectively oppose the oppression. The power dynamic is being balanced (or dipped in the favor of labor) by sheer number of protestors / workers.
If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.
They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.
The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.
The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.
This is true but not a necessity of capitalism. Pigouvian can put the destruction of the commons back in that box.
That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.
the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked...
Before Capitalism Humanity drove mammoths into exctintion, and that was a hunter-gatherer society.
https://www.earth.com/news/humans-drove-woolly-mammoths-to-extinction/
What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.
Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.
Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.
This particular system is the main reason it's happening.
Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?
We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.
A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.
And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.
A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s