[Albert Einstein looks at us]
Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to the crippling of the social consciousness of individuals.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy
Albert Einstein
Why Socialism?
1949
https://thebad.website/comic/the_crippling_of_individuals
The crippling of individuals
20 Comments
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 24d
Crippling of social consciousness is another way to say loss of empathy.
I don't believe apathy rises from unlimited competition, but from increased power. Anyone who gains power loses empathy. I suppose unchecked power is a feature of unlimited competition.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 24d
Plenty of people at the bottom have no empathy. The very notion that life is a zero sum game where for me to win, you lose destroys empathy.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 24d
Does capitalism mean zero sum? I don't think so. Competition can lead to innovation and efficiencies that increase quality of life. A healthy economy has everyone participating and working toward better outcomes. Democratic capitalism can do this only if properly regulated - and that means constitutionally set up so people control the goals of government - not corporations, and not individual billionaires.
h0tbeef@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 24d
Capitalism doesn’t actually foster competition tho, it fosters monopolies, which is why there are so much fewer companies than there used to be.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
It does foster competition but can also lead to monopolies without enough regulation. It only can work with appropriate regulation, which is hard to achieve.
h0tbeef@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 21d
Well yeah, with enough regulation
Problem is regulatory capture
The rich people have purchased all media channels and all politicians, and now all of the regulations which we had to write in blood are being hand waived into oblivion.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Oh ya. For sure. The U.S. is done for until the revolution.
h0tbeef@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 21d
Yeah… I wish more people knew enough about history to recognize that violence is often the answer
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 24d
The goal of capitalism is to obtain as much capital as possible in order to control the means of production. If there is a finite amount of capital, the more I have, the less you have. The inevitable result of this process is that the capitalists will control more means of production than the government. They will then change the rules of the government so that they can more efficiently acquire capital (regulatory capture). They will then make it illegal to dissent with capitalism or its agents (fascism <- you are here).
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 21d
Right. The only way it can work is if the government remains beholden to the people. Corporate lobbying needs to be viewed as illegal bribery, and criminally prosecuted. It has to be a fundamental part of the government framework with constitutional protection.
You can say that won't work because of capitalism, but we're allowed to change the rules of capitalism. Just like we can put rules in a communist system to try to avoid fascism. There is probably no perfect system for humans. Capitalism has some benifits and might be a good system if properly regulated, which clearly the U.S. is not. I believe a successful system needs some form of competition and reward for success in a framework that enables technical development and where priorities are controlled by an citizen-level feedback system like our money and for profit business. Human nature seems to require it so we don't stagnate.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
No amount of regulation will overcome the unlimited accumulation of capital. The idea that humans will not innovate unless required to for survival couldn't be further from the truth and is the result of decades of propaganda. In fact, the most reliable way to allow humans to innovate is to make sure their basic survival is provided for 1.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 21d
I think it takes more to drive innovation on the scale that capitalism can achieve. I agree the continued accumulation of capital isn't sustainable. Taxes and equivalent mechanisms need to keep the system in balance. This could be done - probably not in the U.S. before it collapses or a revolution occurs. But the concept of capitalism doesn't require infinite capital acquisition. Of course there are other ways that innovation can be promoted, but government driven research has a tendency to stifle risk taking and creative freedom. Capitalism happens to be naturally good at promoting effective innovation. It uses people's greed as a motivator which works well with humans although of course it's a double edged sword and must be handled carefully.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Innovation on the scale that capitalism can achieve is destroying the planet. We don't need that.
Bad@jlai.lu · 11 pts · 24d
In the same essay (Why Socialism?), Einstein places the blame of structural apathy not on "human nature", as far too many people do, but rather on the type of selfish society created by the capitalist mode of production:
systemglitch@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 24d
Socialism would be great if humans were not corrupt and craving power over others so often.
As with all things there needs to be a proper balance. Universal Health Care? Yes. Roads, police, fire departments, all good.
Bad@jlai.lu · 11 pts · 24d
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 23d
this is a clear example of how artistic ability gives you too much power
systemglitch@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
rimu@piefed.social · 0 pts · 23d
Witty. Well done. Many upvotes, including mine.
Ok so everyone agrees that power, obtained in either system, corrupts.
Which system has (or could be made to have) the least-worst checks and balances on that tendency?
Maybe we could come up with a mixture of the two systems?
What other systems could be made instead?