This is fine

So when the communist party came into power after the Bolshevik revolution, Wilson went to the League of Nations to negotiate a common embargo of the Soviet project, essentially sanctioning Russia the way we might sanction a nation for humanitarian wrongdoing.

This is to say Wilson was afraid of it actually working, which would jeopardize the industrial moguls who were already running the US.

This is also to say, the Soviet Union was doing a communism in hostile circumstances, much the way European monarchs pressured France to raise a new king after the revolution (leading to Napoleon's rise to power, the Levée en masse (general conscription) and the War of the First Coalition (or as is modernly known, Napoleon Kicks European Butt For A While ).

Historians can't really say, but the fact the red scare started with Wilson (and not after WWII) might have influenced events, including the corruption of the party and the rise of Stalin as an autocrat.

Also according to Prof. Larry Lessig, Boss Tweed in the 1850s worked to make sure the ownership class called all the shots in the United States, eventually driving us to Hoover and the Great Depression. FDR's New Deal (very much resented by the industrialists) was a last chance for Capitalism, which then got a boost because WWII commanded high levels of production and distracted us with a foreign enemy. Then the cold war.

So communism was really unlucky and didn't get a fair shake in the Soviet Union, and US free market capitalism got especially lucky in the 20th century, and we don't really know if either one can be held together for more than a century or two. EU capitalism is wavering, thanks to pressure from the far right, and neoliberalism failing to serve the public.

In the meantime, check out what's going on in Cuba, which isn't perfect, but is interesting.

FYI, in the fifties the CIA wrote a memo where they stated that claims that Stalin was autocratic were largely exaggerated and the USSR largely had collective leadership.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
- On one hand, i don't trust the cia on anything. I dont even trust them to know what those words mean.
  On the other; this us hilarious.
Command-economy communism is an absolute joke and a terrible idea.
- I agree, but very large corporations (like WalMart and Amazon with high levels of vertical integration and revenue greater than the GDP of many countries) are kind of like a command-economies and "work" (for the shareholders). So, I think command-economies can work, but the question is for whom.
- It really depends. China is winning the race on sustainable energy because it's treating it the way the US treated the Space Race after Sputnik.
  And we are seeing how market economies go, the the outcome is dire.
  I don't know what works, but obviously neither do you. Neither do our elected representatives who are captured by interests to return to monarchy (which can command the economy).
  So that's, just, like, your opinion, man.
You lost me at "the Soviet Union was doing a communism". Hard to see a dictatorship as the workers owning the means of production.
- “The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated.”
  — The CIA
  (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf)
- This is such a weird thing people believe in, no?
  "USSR was communist!" everyone says, when there was nothing communist about how the country was governed. But, somehow, these same people don't consider North Korea a democratic country, even though they even have that in their name.
  And every time I mention that "we don't know if communism works, nobody has tried it yet", I'm getting downvoted to oblivion...
Putting aside it is a baseless speculation, how is a system that falls into authoritarianism under a little bit of pressure a good system? If it wasn't capitalists, wouldn't it be something else? Drought? Covid?
- I’m currently watching capitalism in America bow to authoritarianism. I fail to see what you’re trying to say
- Putting aside it is a baseless speculation, how is a system that falls into authoritarianism under a little bit of pressure a good system?
  Looks at present day US and UK
- It's not baseless speculation, and it's not a little bit of pressure. I'm saying it was a lot of pressure. And I'm saying we don't know what could have happened if the early Soviet Union was left alone to flourish or fail on its own merits.
  I'm not sure if we can leave an experimental state to do its own thing, since it is really popular among commercial interests and aristocrats to meddle with establishment systems in order to procure more power, lather, rinse, repeat. All for freedom and for pleasure; nothing ever lasts forever
  Regardless, it appears that we're just too tempted when creating our state constitutions to lend favor, at least, to the petite bourgeoisie, who take advantage of that power to secure more power until the state collapses into an autocratic regime or factions into warlord states.

It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets. I wish everybody would focus on those things falling down and needing to be fixed instead of pretending we’re going to throw the whole system out tomorrow.

It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets.
Sure, it's just too bad it's also a system in which the most powerful are incentivized to cut regulations and destroy social safety nets.
This utopic version of capitalism sounds really nice, but it's fully incompatible with the actual reality of capitalism.
- This utopic version of capitalism sounds really nice, but it’s fully incompatible with the actual reality of capitalism.
  All it takes for capitalism to work flawlessly is... checks notes... a fundamental change in human nature, where we no longer feel greed.
  EZPZ. Best system ever designed!
  (don't tell anyone that this would equally make communism work)
- That's not "utopic" it's how it exists right now in a number of Western countries.
  The government is supposed to respond to the people. In Europe, it more often does. In the US, complacent/ignorant/lazy people do nothing to demand the government provide for the people. Instead, they waste time on the internet pretending that command-economy communism would magically be better.
- This perverse incentive, however, is at least limited to a very small group of people, whose influence, with the correct exercise of state power, can be contained.
  In a capitalist economy or capitalist-like economy, everyone's individual self-interest aligns with the collective self-interest a good percentage of the time, so relatively little state intervention is needed to keep it working well. The problem with alternative economic systems is that it is in almost nobody's interest to work for the common good, either because of a collective action problem (in communist or communist-like systems) or other reasons. That is why governments in non-capitalist countries are comparatively more heavy-handed with their application of state power. They have to do so in order to maintain their system when it is in nobody's interest to do so on their own.
  Without addressing the more obscure systems which I do not know enough about to give an informed take, the difference between capitalism and communism is that the former works by assuming the worst of everyone and the latter works by assuming the best of everyone. And humans acting in large groups tend to act shitty and selfishly.
It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets.
Both regulation and social safety nets run counter to the concept of a free market and a free market is central to the definition of Capitalism.
That's like saying "The best form of travel is unrestrained forward acceleration" with the caveat that it must be combined with the ability to break and steer.
- No, it’s like saying that the best form of transportation is some form of forward locomotive force kept in check by brakes and steering. Like, you know actual cars.
  Basically you’re looking at a Toyota Corolla and saying “What? Some of its parts move it forward, and some of its parts stop it from moving? That’s a total contradiction! It’s central to the definition of a car that it move forward!”
  Yes regulation and social safety nets run counter, that’s the point.
  There’s no one concept which makes for a good system in a totally undiluted form. Pure centralized economy: disaster. Pure capitalism, disaster.
  Capitalism tempered by regulation and socialism: a balance of economic dynamism and humanist restraint.
  The core of your argument seems to be that the only form of capitalism is unrestrained capitalism and we just don’t agree on those semantics. I believe a free market system can be governed and taxed to support social welfare. You believe that capitalism can only be unrestrained. Well, my version of reality is everywhere we look: both Europe and the US are examples of free market economies with some safety net and regulation attached. Europe is stronger on the latter two but the US is hardly at zero.
- Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, was pretty clear that a free market still needs protection.
  A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation...
  Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilised society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.
  The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population.
- Look at the scandinavian countries. Arguably the best example of how to do capitalism, regulation and socialism. Seems to work out for their citizens.
- "The best form of travel is unrestrained forward acceleration" with the caveat that it must be combined with the ability to break and steer.
  That's pretty accurate, though...
Uh, why? What's actually good about it? Like, what dies it do well?
- It's an incredible system for moving all the money to the top 0.001%
- People have a natural desire to pursue their own interests. Capitalism takes advantage of this and thereby fuels the most dynamic economies in the world. Even China’s success only took off once they started allowing entrepreneurial enterprises some breathing room.
  When you’re stuck in a collective system where everyone gets the same regardless of what they do, you get a bunch of unmotivated people who don’t do much. Why should they?
  This is the age old debate. Pure communism sounds like a paradise: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. So fair! So inclusive! But in practice it is a nightmare and lead la to famine every time.
  In this thread we have a bunch of Americans who complain that capitalism is robbing them blind for the benefit of billionaires, but those same Americans doing all the whining are still wealthier than than 90% of the globe for 90% of history. The fact that someone is obscenely rich doesn’t take away from the fact that you are fed and housed and employed. And those things can’t just be taken for granted. Learn history. A lot of people have suffered without them.
  Capitalism has ugly excesses, but they aren’t as ugly as the deprivations that communism has caused. Taking a tiger is dangerous, but I’d rather tame a tiger than try to get a dead corpse to plow the fields. In the same way, I think our best bet is to tame capitalism, even if it is dangerous Nd difficult. At least there’s something to work with. I mean really, look at the main problem that people have with capitalism: that it’s OBSCENE WEALTH isn’t shared equally. That does suck, but at least there is obscene wealth for us to fight over.
- Capitalists love to conflate things like free market economies and capitalism.
  There is only one good hack that free market capitalism figured out. If you make it profitable for people to satisfy others needs you can create a system where needs get satisfied and without explicit planning.
  That’s the good bit about free markets. You want a hamburger, well if enough people want it then there will be a profit motive for someone to supply it.
  There that’s literally it. That’s the good thing. It causes people to not sit idle but to go find ways to make profit and in the best most ideal version the ways they find to do that are a net benefit to society at large, people get hamburgers.
  It doesn’t do anything to control for the psychopaths who would rather gather another bag of money they can never hope to spend by exploiting people. It doesn’t supply things that have low demand (like cures for rare diseases). It doesn’t have any short circuit for the profit motive in case it makes us do something stupid like destroy the ecosystem.
  I wish we could look at it objectively. If you make it so people have to do things to make profit to survive they won’t sit idle. That’s the upside. The downside is pretty down though and one can acknowledge the upside and still think “yea this system still kinda blows, it’s predicated on people not being allowed to exist unless they are generating profit”
The strongest safety net would be to do away with capitalism and move to socialism. Which is why the U.S. diplomatically isolates, trade embargos, or just fucking assassinates countries/leaders that try to start socialism.
- Do you want to show me these very strong pure socialist societies? Are you really going to claim that pure socialism is a perfect system but it’s never been allowed to work, even one time, and has been sabotaged 100% of the time? I am aware of such sabotage, but I refuse to believe that the sabotage has been flawless and never allowed this perfect system to succeed, even once. Pure socialism has more than just capitalist sabotage against it.
when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets
🤣 I’m not disagreeing with the sentiment but to think we’ll see those anytime soon is a bit of a sad joke. I think too many people in power have made too much money for anything but a sundering to change their minds and allow themselves to be regulated and work for the good of all, instead of themselves.
In a slightly different vein of thought, I think there is truth to the sentiment that fascists don’t cede power willingly. I get that we should focus on things we can change that aren’t unimportant, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a fascist government being voted out.
- The only thing making stronger regulation impossible is self-defeating apathy.
  The hard truth is that none of us here in this thread are out in the streets rioting because we are fed, housed, and have a job to get to. We talk about capitalism as if it only benefits Elon Musk but we’re all riding the same bus. He just has a better seat.
I think we're just tried of thinking we can fix the things falling down cuz the people in charge are perfectly happy getting rich AF right now. Why change anything?
Thinking you can fix the system is kinda laughable in 2025.
- Not as laughable as thinking you can throw the system out. Incremental improvement is the only thing that has ever worked, and many generations have faced challenges. This is not the first time that wealthy interests have squeezed the working class. This is not the first time that politics has been dysfunctional.

It's just a little austerity for the poors, bro, relax.

You are not like them poors bro, you will be a billionaire any day now! You don't wanna pay taxes on those billions right?
It's just a little austerity for the poors
Maybe, but then again Gary thinks it's the middle class who will pay .

Was the .com crash bad for average people? I was not yet financially responsible for myself then.

I was average people and watched a lot of layoffs happen over it.
It didn't feel that way, not like 2006 felt. I think the crash got quickly overshadowed by 9/11. I also believe that the bubble itself was actually managed better, instead of becoming instant tax cuts and handouts like bubbles under Republicans, so the fallout didn't feel so bad.
- The worst thing that happened during it was the Enron scandal, a bunch of startup website companies failed, and the ones that didn’t are evil mega corps now.
Being close to tech, it was a hard time with friends losing their jobs.
Yes. It affected the entire economy. I was young, but I remember people around me being worried about losing their jobs, some losing their jobs, and some unable to find jobs (everyone around me were factory workers). The data seems to reflect this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE. The system depends on the rich investing their money, and when they get scared to invest in "productive" enterprises, they just stash their money in "unproductive" stuff like government bonds (which should actually signal to the government that the government should borrow and spend on productive stuff to take advantage of low borrowing costs, but the government is stupid and usually does austerity instead).

Why It's So Hard To Imagine Life After Capitalism

https://youtu.be/PaASqPnpq5Y

That was good, thanks.

best

*Least worst so far, maybe, if we're being generous (which tends to be frowned upon or downright illegal under capitalism, so better let's not).

It's not the best system, it's the most addictive.

What's the better system?

Techno fascism? No wait that's what we're turning into
At the very least heavy regulation to prevent unfair practices. Humans will pretty much always optimize the fun out of everything.
Take competitive video games for example, where once something becomes the meta, it's used and abused until it gets nerfed. But people still play hundreds of games with whatever the most optimal meta is, even if it takes the fun and variety out of the game and makes it boring.
Pretty much every economic system ends up the same way, people figure out the most optimal ways to exploit whatever the system is, take the fun and fairness out of it, and ruin it for anyone who doesn't want to play by the meta. In an ideal system, there's strong regulatory systems in place (for example the FTC and the CFPB) that work to balance things and make sure the system works for everyone. But the people who like to optimize the fun out of things have decided they'd like the regulators out of the way so they can go crazy with their exploitation.
This but unironically
- I'm not being ironic. No one ever answers this question.
- Whatever Norway is doing
- So far, capitalism with socialist safety nets.
Any where such stupidly high wealth inequality cannot happen, or at least that doesn't put "the economy" as the most important thing in the universe, environment, communities and individuals be damned
I mean there were a bunch of regulations that helped reduce these issues in the US but they've been chipped away over time so they are less effective.
for invidiual everyday people? Probably something that involves smaller countries. I think part of the reason we have so many of these brazenly corrupt and evil administrations is because the systems are so big the temptation to go megalomaniac just trying to steer the ship is there
, Imagine being told to vote in an election when you live in Idaho or Yukon, and that ultimatley, your vote doesn't matter because everything gets determined by a couple of population centers (in the case of Canada) or the fate of how a couple swing states vote (USA)
and then once they're in power, there's 10,000 mouths all crowing at the mother-bird for food. and only the loudest half get fed at all
Im making weird analogies but the point is, I think we're looking at this the wrong way. Countries, and therfor economies and Markets, were never meant to get to the size they are today, Countries Like China, America, Russia, India, they are largely unmanagable without brutal oppression , and economically, it's herding cats.
- I think so as well, it's so easy to hide corruption and power grabs in Kafka-esque giant machines.
Maybe short term: highly regulated capitalism
But I don't think anyone even remembers that effective regulation can exist
It's clear we need sweeping change and an entirely different system though, I just don't know what that looks like
- Some people remember regulation exist. The problem is that bureaucracy, lobbying and corruption do their best to make good regulation take forever to be put in place

F1 memes crossover plz

We're not in the crash yet. We've been very close a few times, but they keep reviving the dying horse while they beat it.

It helps when you have a fiat currency that the world is tied to. Won't last forever.

I agree with this. It's gotten bad, like, great depression bad, at times, but it never lasted. There has so far been bounce backs in a relatively reasonable timeframe.
When it crashes, you'll know.

Advocates of capitalism 50 years ago: you dont understand! Caputalism is good bevause people arent, and capitalism harnesses our vices to make us productive! It turns our vices into virtues!

Advocates of capitalism today: no we dont need to get rid of it, we just need to fix it and add virtue and decency! Oh shit, i need to go out today, where's my gas mask and iodine?

Get rid of it and replace it with what?
- Almost literally anything else. You want me to just name alternatives? I've got favorotes but I'm not super partisan here.

Capitalism fails every 4-7 years.

Because these only happen in capitalism. Yeah, sure. Wanna buy a bridge?

Let me guess: you think China is a communist country?
- You guessed wrong. I think blaming any kind of -isms and not looking at what exactly is going wrong and what to do to make things better won't land anyone in a better place
- What about their reply made you think they held this opinion? Genuine question, it doesn't read that way at all to me.

I mean, it's the only one that has survived till now.

Survival by mass murder, very good things
- I mean, all the others did that too. This is more of a human thing than a capitalism thing.

Economic crashes are not related to capitalism. All human activity increases and decreases at different times. Capitalism is irrelevant.

Economic crashes are not related to the current political economic system? Lmao
- Crashes will always occur, regardless of "the current political economic system".
Room temp IQ take.
It's true that civilization is inherently brittle but those ebbs and flows logically come from things outside of human control. Eg. natural disasters, crop failures, spikes in population pressure, etc...
In no sane universe does a society (producing 10x it's true resource demand) rubber band on the brink of destruction just because a few rich fucks need to make their high score bigger. The whole gambit of civilization is sacrificing individual flexibility for group stability, an economic system that misses that mark is antithetical.