Easy answers are never right. So capitalism is not >the< problem. For example: Look at the the history of the Soviet Union. Its way more complex
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
203 points (89.5% liked)
Economics
1850 readers
205 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's inevitable to think capitalism is wrong, but it's easier to fix than Communism or any other system.
I stopped to shout against capitalism simply cause we do not have a better solution yet. Also when capitalism gets wrong, it's mostly because a lack of regulations. A balanced system, like socialdemocracies in Scandinavia are a good example.
Unfortunately it seems we are going towards autocracies everywhere, and that's not capitalism's fault but just human greediness. So in other word, we're the problem, otherwise Socialism would reign all over the world.
I always felt capitalism was just humans at their most pure and Evil. At their worst. In their most unfettered state.
Embrace the paradox, humans are arguably the greatest rights violators in all forms of violence, but they are also the only beings capable of granting rights through moral agency. The paradox is also true of anthropocentric climate change, it's creator, but also it's only possible resolver. The environment only has instrumental value to conscious beings so it would miss the mark to assume the absence of humans is in anyone's (including animals) best interest.
Guess we should just try to get through each others thick skulls instead of being edgy :/
Cats are a really close second. I don't think there have been too many humans that have driven entire species to extinction. There have been a few cats that were allowed to exterminate multiple entire species. Don't get me wrong. I love the furry little psychopaths, but they are furry little psychopaths.
What causes, and conducts capitalism if not humans?
machines, in the future
Capitalism is a system of class oppression where one class of humans that produces nothing exploits the other who produces everything. This also occurred under feudalism, which utilized religion to mediate all social relations and maintain social order, the subject of religion being God. The subject of capitalism is profit.
The struggle between classes will remain after the defeat of capitalism, but we must make sure to develop a society in which the many continue to struggle for the benefit of all over the domination of the few who struggle only for their own benefit. The rule of the few dehumanizes the many to varying degrees to justify their own dominance, and through that dominance influences the many to accept the imposed condition of their own diminished humanity. Through the dehumanization of others however, the ruling class makes its self less human.
So even though it is humans carrying out this oppression, it is necessary to diminish the humanity of others in order to rule, and their rule sets the standard for what is and is not human.
When we fail to see nature as a unity of opposing forces, then we fail to recognize that every object is defined not in itself but by the things that relate to it, and we can't understand some vital truths. Namely, that every social thing is defined not just by it's own existence but also by the existence of its opposite.
Which is to say, that while it appears that humanity is the problem, this belief is a condition of our own oppression. Humanity of the many is not the "virus," it is on fact the cure for the virus of class oppression and dehumanization. But to accomplish this, the masses must reassert our own humanity, unflinchingly in the face of violence that seeks to make us low and break our spirit.
As Paolo Friere said, "it is the historic mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressor."
Paulo Freire mentioned!
All capitalists are humans but not all humans are capitalists so it's a bit of an overgeneralisation.
Humans invented and seem to naturally gravitate to capitalism, it's not some cosmic evil imposed on them. They're still a virus.
Humans invented and seem to naturally gravitate to capitalism
Do we naturally gravitate towards capitalism? I'd say we gravitate towards communism on family to tribal scales. Seems like capitalism or its precursor takes hold after one group conquers another and exploitation begins.
It would be nice if communism was an emergent behavior of humanity. It's got to be forced from the top down with a vanguard.
I think it is, but the top is enforcing capitalism and reacts to anything that smells like communism.
Well, the largest expeditor of the problem, but still done by and for an infection.
We still made huge impact to the ecosystems in the past too, it's just that we now no longer destroy only local ecosystems.
Without capitalism, would we still be an infection?
Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We've ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of 'don't leave a mark' and and always had the concept of 'trash'.
We've also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
I find it difficult to disagree with your points for the most part, although I feel many are not entirely accurate, but your main point remains. So my next question is, isn't what we're doing as a species more or less natural? That's not an excuse for what we're doing, but calling humanity an infection has too many negative connotations that are unfair. All animals behave this way, boom and bust cycles occur everywhere without human intervention. We're just the first to know what's happening.
Anyway, what's the solution if there is simply an infestation? I think that meme was made for you.
While i agree with you overall, i'd like to point out a few things.
First of all, "growth" is not a purely human concept. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which I advise you to do), all life strives for (evolutionary) growth sooner or later. That is why saying "humans are exceptionally bad because they spread like crazy" is in itself a false thought - all life does that.
The question is: Is humanity's rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As i said earlier, all lives ultimately strives towards evolutionary growth. Humans can aid that cause by making life multiplanetary. Don't get me wrong, i'm not at all a Musk fanboy. But i believe in this single point: Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth. That is why i see it as "humanity has also some very big advantages to life on Earth in general" besides "humanity causes the largest mass-extinction in a long time". Both are true.
Lol, never said anything to the contrary, my dear friend!
Everything what I compared humans to has a precedence in the wild (we arent that unique), which ended in a catastrophe of sorts (and a rebound an eon later).
Are you suggesting infestation can be a non-life phenomenon? I am def intrigued! (Even in sci-fo terms!)
Ofc it's part of the natural selection!
The question is: Is humanity's rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As said, an infestation, I never argued if justified or not (whatever even means to be "justified" to lower biodiversity like humans do).
However we are in the midst of a mass eviction event.
Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth.
Yes, exactly, and this can also be an infestation when the "invasive species" (human term) spreads and kills the existing local species bcs the ecosystem isn't balanced. This usually negatively effects biodiversity.
Like rats killed entire species when were introduced to New Zealand and similar secluded islands.
Yeah probably if we took the immediate means of production and just tried to socialise them. Idk if doing what Lenin did back in the day would work now (just copying capitalist production and socialising it.)