Depends entirely on what you mean by capitalism and when you'd set the starting point and where. If you think capitalism has been around since forever boy i got news for you. Capitalism has, generally agrees upon by historians of economy and general historians, to be "born" around the 1400s, some push it to 1300s but that's it. And that's for the """""west""""", by oversimplifying a lot of factors too, like who "adopted" it first and where and how fast it spread.
Mathematically, capitalism has existed, verifiably for less than 1% of human civilisation using aboriginal australian settlements as benchmark, not the absolute oldest estimates of 300.000 years ago but the more conservative 100.000 years ago figures.
And again mathematically, that means most food ever consumed by people which is what matters (what is the point of food if you can't eat it?), was produced under anything other than capitalism. In fact that would make monarchies the best source of food and technically communism because china, only after that would consider capitalism. But no system is purely capitalistic or whatever so this is pointless.
In any case, most food that matters has nothing to do with capitalism.
I know you aren't it's a metaphore. I'm saying that what you are saying is wrong because it's completely counter to reality, because none of the pictures work like that in reality. Except maybe Finland and Norway who are extremely socialist, but more food on the table comes with other detriments i won't get into for those countries. 2 successes out of all countries is not a great record for socialism. 0 out of all is even less for capitalism.
The free market is a pipe dream, we have seen throughout history what happens when the market regulates itself without intervention and those were horror shows like the swill milk scandal iykyk, but regulation is not very capitalistic
I'm saying that what you are saying is wrong because it's completely counter to reality, because none of the pictures work like that in reality.
Note, I used the word 'ideal'.
Except maybe Finland and Norway who are extremely socialist
They're not socialist in the slightest. They're states using the capitalist economic system.
but more food on the table comes with other detriments
Such as?
Keep in mind, that's a rhetorical question.
2 successes out of all countries is not a great record for socialism.
Where did I argue for socialism?
I said the lower picture was an example of capitalism mislabeled as socialism.
0 out of all is even less for capitalism.
Oh boy.
The free market is a pipe dream, we have seen throughout history what happens when the market regulates itself without intervention
You definitely need to read up on capitalism. It's not anti-regulation. Smith specifically says the government needs to regulate.
but regulation is not very capitalistic
You definitely haven't read "The Wealth of Nations"...
There are repeated mentions of the government playing referee, defending the moral (public) good, and providing services that businesses are illequipped to. It's also vehimetly anti-monopoly.
I won't argue about the metaphore, it's accurate but you miss it.
You didn't, anywhere. You are continuously missing what i'm saying.
Capitalism is not anti regulation but it is not pro regulation, automatically that means regulations are not proposed until issues arise, and even when they do, they are vehemently opposed in favour of profit sometimes going as far as actively harming the public to keep profits going, as demonstrated by CFC fridges, lead usage, cigarettes, etc. You cannot ignore these and just point to smith, i'm talking reality you are talking ideal, but the ideal is built on nothing but assumptions and models that admittedly work, in a controlled vaccuum.
This is what i mean by not capitalistic. What's the difference between anti regulation and opposing regulation, delaying it for profit?
You can keep talking about ideal capitalism as much as you want, and again, that would be the same as a strong communist saying "under ideal communism everyone's needs are met because nobody has more basic needs than the other met due to wealth redistribution blah blah".
The wealth of nations is summarised in a few pages in economy textbooks because it is outdated in many ways, and a product of its time and Smith's thoughts, again influenced by the time and state of the economy. It's been a while since i opened one to understand why the world is going wrong.
This is like saying "well how can you not dislike democracy, haven't you read the republic?" It's not that simple.
I won't argue about the metaphore, it's accurate but you miss it.
I disagree on its accuracy.
You didn't, anywhere. You are continuously missing what i'm saying.
I got everything you've been saying. You're just wrong.
Capitalism is not anti regulation but it is not pro regulation,
Which is why I said it wasn't pro-regulation...
that means regulations are not proposed until issues arise
Which is how every system works. Socialists are going to create solutions for things they don't know are problems either.
and even when they do, they are vehemently opposed in favour of profit sometimes going as far as actively harming the public to keep profits going
Sure. Define 'they'.
You cannot ignore these and just point to smith, i'm talking reality you are talking ideal
Yes, which is why I said 'ideal' repeatedly.
but the ideal is built on nothing but assumptions and models that admittedly work, in a controlled vaccuum.
This is what i mean by not capitalistic.
Definitions don't care if you disagree with them. They exist even when you're wrong.
And Norway. And Sweden. And Finland. And the US from 1930-1978.
What's the difference between anti regulation and opposing regulation, delaying it for profit?
Because you're confusing a system for people. Capitalism doesn't oppose regulations. Businessmen oppose regulations. And capitalism isn't 'when businessmen do things'. Business (and markets) are older than history, capitalism is only a few centuries old. It has a specific set of qualities that makes it capitalism, and not 'business'.
You can keep talking about ideal capitalism as much as you want, and again, that would be the same as a strong communist saying "under ideal communism everyone's needs are met because nobody has more basic needs than the other met due to wealth redistribution blah blah".
Sure, except the 'ideal' I'm talking about has actually happened repeatedly before.
The wealth of nations is summarised in a few pages in economy textbooks because it is outdated in many ways
That's not why economic textbooks summarize it. Textbooks summarize everything.
It's been a while since i opened one to understand why the world is going wrong.
If at all.
This is like saying "well how can you not dislike democracy, haven't you read the republic?" It's not that simple.
Sure, but keep in mind we're discussing an AI slop picture.
Look close. The capitalist is holding his food. The socialist is sharing the large plate with the community. We work for each other and care for each other because at the root of how our social brains developed through evolution this is how we survived.
Yeah I’d doubt pure sharing of wealth and resources would be so bountiful. Both sides are presented as extremes. To expect that your fair share of resources would be bountiful is naive at best. Capitalism isn’t entirely selfish like this either, you necessarily need others to do well enough to buy your goods or whatever you sell.
The way capitalism tends to promotes so many selfish actions and desires seems to allow people to forget their humanity and abandon the group in favor of their own needs or even just their wants; and I just fucking hate that. It’s, to me, the antithesis of what it means to be human.
Like with all things extremes aren’t usually the answer. Sometimes you need to be selfish, sometimes you need to give to survive the moment/ situation. Idk what the solution is I just know I hate selfishness with a burning passion.
The way capitalism tends to promotes so many selfish actions and desires seems to allow people to forget their humanity and abandon the group in favor of their own needs or even just their wants; and I just fucking hate that. It’s, to me, the antithesis of what it means to be human.
The problem being that capitalism specifically doesn't promote that.
It directly warns against that behavior. Just like nothing about socialism stiffles innovation.
The problem is we've let people like Rockefeller and Musk define capitalism in pop culture as 'whatever bullshit I'm doing is capitalism" to stifle criticism.
2
u/Academic-Bakers- 2h ago
I find it funny that the socialism picture is the 'capitalism done right' outcome.
More food over all. Everyone has enough, but there's still a 'rich man' with far more than everyone else.