Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    8 months ago

    Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. It’s not perfect, but neither is any other system.

    • Shalakushka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Industrialization lifts people out of poverty, capitalism sinks them into poverty by stealing the value of their labor as profit.

      Also what’s with the phrase “lifted out of poverty?” The fuck does that mean? Why is this same phrase repeated anytime some criticizes capitalism? It’s like a stock phrase or talking point that makes you sound like a robot.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s pretty amazing considering Adam Smith didn’t write The Wealth of Nations until well after steam engines were in use in Britain.

          Capitalism must be so powerful it can time travel!

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Modern Capitalism is more a product of the Dutch East India company, chartered in the early 17th century, than Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations which was written as a critique of the subsequent 200 years of capitalist practices.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Industrialization in the USSR didn’t happen? Damn. Where did all those nuclear power plants come from, then? What about that massive agricultural surplus? How did they develop their own computer technologies?

          • kbotc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m amazed that you chose the three worst things you could have picked from the USSR. They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists, did not believe in genetics, period, and created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility (Gigantic centralized serf farms are bad if the local weather isn’t ideal! , and their computers were trinary garbage that barely functioned.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists

              Soviets had a hydrogen bomb before their Western peers.

              What’s more the world’s first nuclear power station at Obninsk was connected to the Moscow grid in June of 1954. The Soviets outpaced their American peers in nuclear power, rocketry, and advanced electronics well into the 1970s.

              did not believe in genetics, period

              That’s flatly untrue. And it completely neglects their role in eliminating smallpox during the 1950s.

              created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility

              https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/09/world/cia-says-soviet-can-almost-do-without-imports.html

              the average Soviet citizen consumes about 3,300 calories a day, as against 3,520 for an American. The report showed that the Soviet diet consists of far more grain and potatoes than the American diet, but less fish and meat and less sugar.

              They ended famine in Asia. A continent that suffered mass famine every ten to fifteen years was fully fed through domestic agricultural production by the end of the 1960s.

              Stalin was so stacked with grain in the 50s that he was bailing out the English colonies throughout India and Bangledish.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        8 months ago

        Are you sure about that, because last I checked the Soviets industrialized and their people still stayed poor as hell.

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What’s your definition of poor? Because by the 70s most Soviet citizens had access to modern necessities like food, water, electricity, housing and healthcare, things which some Americans still don’t have. Their standard of living was significantly higher than it was in the early 1900s and better than actual poor countries in the global south. They weren’t as rich as the western nations, but those countries had a 50-100 year headstart on development so that’s to be expected.

          People will often compare the Soviet Union to the United States and point to how much less they have and blame it on communism, but that’s not a fair comparison. A fair comparison would be to a mexico that also had everything north of Mexico city bombed out in the 1940s. With that in mind the soviets don’t seem so poor.

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because by the 70s most Soviet citizens had access to modern necessities like food, water, electricity, housing and healthcare, things which some Americans still don’t have.

            This little comparison should be enough to get you laughed out of the room.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      That is only true if you use capitalist metrics to measure poverty

      (1) It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism. (2) The rise of capitalism caused a dramatic deterioration of human welfare. In all regions studied here, incorporation into the capitalist world-system was associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality. In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, key welfare metrics have still not recovered. (3) Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began several centuries after the rise of capitalism.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        The way capitalists use capitalist metrics to prove capitalism is good is really annoying. “Look at our per-capita GDP!”

        “Yeah but you have one billionaire and everyone else goes bankrupt if they get sick.”

        “Yeah, but our per-capita GDP is high so we don’t need to do anything.”

        • theluddite@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Paul Krugman is an innovator in this field. The other day he had that one about how inflation is under control if you remove, food, energy, used cars, and everything else normal people use. That’s basically all my stuff!

          Also, obligatory GDP joke that’s been bouncing around the internet for a while now:

          As they’re walking, they come across a pile of dog shit. One economist says to the other, “If you eat that dog shit, I’ll give you $50”. The second economist thinks for a minute, then reaches down, picks up the shit, and eats it. The first economist gives him a $50 bill and they keep going on their walk. A few minutes later, they come across another pile of dog shit. This time, the second economist says to the first, “Hey, if you eat that, I’ll give you $50.” So, of course, the first economist picks up the shit, eats it, and gets $50. Walking a little while farther, the first economist looks at the second and says, “You know, I gave you $50 to eat dog shit, then you gave me back the same $50 to eat dog shit. I can’t help but feel like we both just ate dog shit for nothing.” “That’s not true”, responded the second economist. “We increased the GDP by $100!”

    • snipvoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a myth that capitalism alone has lifted people out of poverty. In fact, many nations have fought to implement strong social policies just to try and shield their citizens from its excesses. For every claim of progress, there are countless tales of exploitation, dispossession, and environmental ruin. Saying no system is perfect trivialises the issue. With capitalism, the true cost is often hidden behind the glittering façade of consumerism, at the expense of human dignity, ethics, and our planet’s health.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You’re confusing capitalism with industrialization.

      The development of modern modes of production came about nearly two centuries after the foundation of modern marketplace practices. The Dutch East India Company did not bring people out of poverty. Just the opposite. It served as a means of rapidly conquering and subjugating large indigenous populations, by using the speculative bubbles created during periods of looting to construct large militaries capable of further conquest. The rapid militarization and trans-continental looting/pillaging of the 17th and 18th centuries resulted in the increased spread of contagious disease, the worst genocides committed since at least the Roman era, and the formalization of Colonial Era chattel slavery.

      Industrialization, which was a product of the mathematical and material sciences renaissance of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, produced huge surpluses in commercial goods and services. Revolutions in textile manufacturing, fertilization, fossil fuel-based transportation and electrification, materials sciences, and medical innovation brought hundreds of millions of people out of the agricultural economy and brought a functional end to a litany of common causes of death. The industrial era was not specific to the capitalist economic mode, but it was practiced most aggressively early on by capitalist states.

      But the Industrial Revolution had a huge knock-on effect. Mass media and modern communication reoriented traditional class hierarchies and formed new models for social organization. The seed of socialist theories that had been planted in the 17th and 18th centuries blossomed into massive revolutionary labor movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. This, combined with the industrial collapse of the imperial core in the wake of the First and Second World Wars, signaled the beginning of the end of capitalism as a hegemonic economic force.

      By the 1950s, numerous socialist political experiments produced successful industrialized civilizations, some of which even persist into the modern era. Meanwhile, rising standards of living from industrial surpluses in food, fuel, and living space raised living standards globally without regard to one’s economic mode.

      The real test of capitalism as an enterprise has kicked in during the last 50 years. By the 1970s, the era of cheap fossil fuel was coming to an end and various economic models were forced to contend with a declining rate of new surplus goods and services. Forced to choose between economic conservation/improved efficiency and a new wave of imperial aggression, the capitalist states have attempted to backpedal into their old traditional colonial models of business. The end result has been a new generation of major military conflicts - from the Vietnamese Jungle to the Iraqi desert - alongside a number of ugly civil wars and domestic insurrections in former capitalist strongholds.

      Without a continuous industrial surplus to drive profit, modern capitalist economic models are failing. Quality of life in capitalist states is beginning to decline. And capitalist leaders are turning to more militant methods of seizing natural resources, forcing low-wage labor, and wrecklessly disposing of excess waste.

      Capitalism rode the cresting wave of industrialization for a century. But now it is failing. And people in capitalist states - from the UK to Saudi Arabia to the Philippines - are seeing their quality of life erode away at a rapid pace.

      • MrHandyMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        What the hell are you talking about. The nordic countries constantly rate as one of the most economically free countries in the world. Capitalism is everywhere in the nordic countries, but it’s also used to support comprehensive welfare state.

        And yes, I come from the “happiest country in the world” so I guess I can literally see that we are quite capitalistic.

        Edit: it seems that the original comment was edited so my comment looks kinda unnecessary now

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think it’s been several years in a row now Nordic countries have been rated the happiest in the world.

        Those studies tend to be heavily Euro-centric.

        Some of the happiest countries on earth are in East Asia. Bhutan, in particular, is the happiest country you’ve never heard about. Vietnam and Singapore also tend to rate very high. Bolivia also tends to punch well above its weight class.

        But it should be noted that the Nordic states have historically been very far removed from war. With the Ukraine/Russia conflict, Fins are significantly more unhappy than they’ve been in prior generations. I don’t think you can blame that on their domestic policy or their economic model. As more refugees are forced through Europe in an effort to flee conflicts in Armenia and police crackdowns in Hungary and industrial sabotage through the Baltic Sea, happiness in the region is plummeting.

      • cia@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Those countries are capitalist. Research the Nordic Model.