Capitalism is a race to the bottom where the poor countries in the world are being put under the thumb. You don't have to look very far. Just look at all the CIA ops the USA has conducted in the 20th century, e.g. Allende.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolu...
There are a ton of efforts, both from state-actors[1], NGOs[2] and individuals, seeking to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide. It is not apparent that it is "fixing itself with capitalism" or that any of the previous actors think it is going to happen.
> trickle-down effects actually exist
Citation Needed because trickle-down economics has been shown to increase inequality and not increase the quality of life for those in poverty.
> Yes, capitalism needs regulation, but it is a lie to say that the entire approach is doomed to be a race to the bottom.
Why is it a lie?
[1]: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/data/oecd-internati...
[2]: https://data.oecd.org/drf/grants-by-private-agencies-and-ngo...
That's interesting, but what is the proportion of middle-class individuals to the rest of the population, in Jordan? If there's 100 kids able to play Diablo 3 in Jordan, while every other kid their age can't afford a computer, then Diablo 3 is not a very useful metric of anything.
Jordan is one of the richest countries in the region btw.
I fundamentally disagree with a left-right x-axis; we're missing out on authoritative-liberty. Hence politicalcompass.org provides a better framework.
Some of these bandaids are authoritarian, some are liberal. For example, trademarks, patents, copyright each grant power to one or more individuals (ie. a minority) over a vast majority. Here, the free market is being regulated by the government. We consider it part of capitalism.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/the-new-economic-mode...
Your thoughts on seasteading, even as a hypothetical?
This in and of itself speaks volumes. If it were truly a viable system it could start in one country which would quickly outstrip all others in technology, culture, industrial production, quality of life for its citizens... Then all other countries would gladly follow.
But they knew from the very beginning that people who could vote with their feet, would flee that system. Countries that restrict people from leaving know perfectly well that they are doing something evil.
Instead, following your startup idea, we should foster worker co-ops, which already exist today and are compatible within existing nations. One example is the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
For a capitalist, this vision is like blaming the engine for the direction the car is taking.
I didn't say it did. I pointed out that if you're going to insist that mass murder under a few decades of communist regimes = real communism, then mass murder (and genocide and slavery) under centuries of capitalist regimes = real capitalism.
> Communism [...] invents all kinds of counter measure ( one of them being the revolution, and « temporary » dictactorship).
Communism did not invent revolution or dictatorship.
It is not of the same nature.
And yet I seem to have done it.
> People blaming communism makes a lot more sense
You're entitled to your opinion.
> because it does deal with what the political regime should be (once again, a dictatorship).
Since you persist in arguing about "dictatorship" instead of communism, I don't see any point in continuing this.
Edit: instant downvoter I think you missed one of my posts; here's a link to make it easier:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16034997
Feel free to check out my comments page and obsessively downvote others you may have missed, if any.
You'll probably argue that this kind of dictatorship isn't to be understood in the common sense, but judging by the various communists thinkers that refer gladly to violence, as well as its historical examples, i'd say the difference aren't that clear.
I don't have to. Your own link says so in just the second paragraph:
Dictatorship of the proletariat is different from the
popular notion of 'dictatorship'Both slavery and imperialism have had a long history before capitalism. Capitalism exists in circumstances with no plausible relationship to slavery or imperialism.
It annoys me because this dialectic is so obviously wrong.
Are you even disagreeing with me?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
You could also ask: How many millions more have to die before we overcome capitalism?
Actually, it has a very concrete definition. The only thing that's flexible is where will communists move the goalpost when another downside or systemic problem is pointed out.
Free people will never care about millions of their "comrades" the same way the can care about their 100-200 closest social connections.
Come on, we can do better here than the tired old “not real communism” argument.
it just means that we didn't have the right data, or perhaps we need a new analysis
Ah yes, always followed by “it will be different next time”. How many millions more have to die?