tripu @tripu@social.cleverlibre.org

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

OK, so we agree that greed, empathy, cooperation and solidarity are basic aspects of human nature. I take it that you'd also accept other indelible impulses such as competitiveness, ingenuity, industriousness, the search for prestige and the desire to be recognised as unique and admired by others. Right?

> _“Capitalist systems create incentives for greed and selfish behavior, as the accumulation of wealth is seen as the ultimate goal”_

Maybe. But, how does the opposite of #capitalism (ie, the abolition of private property, private enterprise and free markets) create incentives for empathy, solidarity or cooperation — when people are more homogeneous, don't own anything that they could give away, and are forced to cooperate just because they don't own a thing? There would be less empathy in a perfectly egalitarian society. Mandatory solidarity is an oxymoron.

Also, if you believe that, you would have to agree that the abolition of private property, private enterprise and free markets would destroy incentives for competitiveness, ingenuity and industriousness. Aren't those valuable and useful aspects of human nature, too? How would we do with much less of that? Why are you so sure that the result would be a net positive?

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

> _“Because of capitalisms ‘winner takes all’ mentality, where only the most successful companies or individuals are rewarded, it causes those who don't succeed to be left behind, leaving them and their environments to suffer at the hand of the more powerful, resulting in such things as worker exploitation, environmental degradation, and neglect of community needs.”_

As I said on my post:

“Was slavery before capitalism more benign than wage labour? […] Do those people honestly think that North Koreans or Venezuelans live freer and are subject to less surveillance and oppression? Do homosexuals and transgender people get a better treatment [by the other bloc](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/07/russia-war-gay-persecution-homophobia/)? How does the biggest not-entirely-capitalistic economy in the world [fare in terms of environmental sustainability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_China)?”

The top 5 most capitalistic countries [might well be](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan, New Zealand. The bottom 5, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. In which of those two groups of countries would you prefer to be disabled, mentally ill, an orphan, a wage labourer, an unsuccessful entrepreneur?

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

> _“Capitalism also concentrates wealth into the hands of a few people, creating income inequality, and because the wealthy have enough money to influence political decision making, it makes it easier for them to protect their interest no matter what, resulting in a lack of social safety networks.”_

Capitalism might exacerbate wealth inequality (I just don't know). But it also increases wealth across the board.

Overall, disadvantaged individuals would prefer to be richer under a capitalistic system, even at the “cost” of becoming comparatively less rich than others in that society.

Imagine two scenarios: In world A, you and I stay as we are now. In world B, your material well-being increases 20% and mine increases 30%. I say world B is a better outcome.

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

> _“Because companies are motivated by maximizing profits above all else, that creates a higher likelihood of them engaging in unethical or illegal activities such as bribery, insider trading, or creating misleading advertisements in order to avoid regulations, minimize cost, or maximize revenue, which inevitably leads to corruption.”_

The drive for survival, self-preservation, selfishness and greed are not characteristics of companies or of capitalism — they are a feature of reality and of human nature. It's what happens when there is scarcity and when agents of any kind have to deal with other agents.

Your sentence above is equally true if you replace “companies” with “people”, “cooperatives”, “states”, “government officials” or “bureau”. It is also true if you replace “maximizing profits above all else” with “surviving”, “growing”, “getting rich”, “not becoming obsolete” or “justifying their existence”.

There has been plenty of corruption, greed and “unethical activities” when non-capitalistic individuals and institutions have gained power, too.

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

Can you present evidence that capitalism correlates with any of those things?

The data I have seen plus casual evidence suggest the opposite.

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

What “things” are you referring to, exactly?

@admitsWrongIfProven

You mean https://ofboysandmen.substack.com/ ?

I have some aggressive blocking too, but Substack seems to work fine nonetheless…

@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social

…can't stop being funny on April first?

/cc @inwit @MonarchMommy@mastodon.social

#LinkedIn feed, I hate you with all my soul.

It's impossible to find a post that caught my eye on the front page a few minutes ago.

The algorithm is inescrutable.

URLs of posts are ugly and buried under unnecessary UI; no proper HTML semantics I can rely on.

I should completely ignore you except in between different jobs.

I can't recommend [Richard V. Reeves](https://www.brookings.edu/experts/richard-v-reeves/)' [Of Boys and Men](https://ofboysandmen.substack.com/) enough.

Reeves is measured, constructive and compassionate. He explains so well how exactly #men are falling behind, why we as a society don't even seem to notice that, and how attention to those issues doesn't have to subtract from female issues.

Especially recommended to male issues sceptics out there.

@fidel 😆

#Mothers are awesome and do so many things so well

…except three things, which are precisely the things we #fathers excel at:

saying “no”, making it really the last one or the last time, and ignoring #kids when that's the exact best thing to do.

#parenting

@ourmaninjapan I'm glad it did! (Any ideas worth sharing?)

@bonifartius

I regret to inform you that the war you're referring to was started by an authoritarian regime (not a democracy), later supported by yet another authoritarian state (not a democracy). Even if you think the invaded nation is somehow guilty too (I don't think so), if we had to consider that a democracy it would just barely make the cut (it's rather a hybrid regime).

Anyway, all that's pointless. It's very easy to list the stains of “democracy” after centuries of History. It's equally easy to gloss its achievements in the same period. (I take it that you're posting so eloquently while you're sitting comfortably in the midst of a democracy, and that democracy let you be the person you are now, and allowed for you to be so critical and well informed as you are? That surely counts for you!)

Anarchy doesn't even have a track record to compare against.

@ceoln