Is "Capitalism" An Anti-Human Framework?

[John Thomas8]

The Russian soviets proved to the masses what "communism" could do, and Mao re-enforced the lesson with the number of people killed by incompetent governance.

And, we've seen what robber barons and monopolies can do to the determent of humans, just us regular folks.

And the rules are stacked against humans, in favour of twatwaffles and their sycophant stock holders. Anything to step on the neck of "losers", ordinary people without access to markets or decent wages or assistance because shitstains need their tax breaks.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/stock- ... irus-trump

Prosperity is advertised in aggregate, but it is only experienced by individuals. That is why America has always been able to thrill to high GDP numbers and healthy average incomes without reckoning with horrific inequality on the ground. (The fact that Jeff Bezos and a homeless person standing in a room together have an average net worth of $70 billion each does not do a good job of reflecting the lived reality of each person.) America’s economic response to this crisis is a set of choices. And even the choices that undermine the survival of a large number of people can do wonders for the smaller number of people whose wealth is in stocks. ​“The death of smaller businesses means that the big players in the stock market are anticipating a bumper year, full of bailouts and tax cuts and then austerity when convenient,” says Suresh Naidu, an economist at Columbia University who studies labor and inequality. The coming austerity for the majority, which will be experienced as joblessness and desperation and a lack of public services when they are needed most, is the same thing as a stimulus program for the economically secure minority.

An example of how bad things are is John Deere:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/john-d ... s-contract

Since the early 1980s, workers have received a shrinking share of the wealth they create. You may have seen some version of the Economic Policy Institute’s graph showing that private sector wage growth matched productivity growth between the end of World War II and around 1980. Since then, productivity has risen more than three times as much as workers’ wages.

Our system may not be as directly violent to individuals as the USSR or CCCP, but it's unnecessarily stupid brutal in its own way.

[John Thomas8]

I can't see a fix, either.

Violence, as in the state taking an actual stand against bribery and executing bribe givers/takers.

Right now there's no risk for paying congresscritters for kkkorporate favours. None. Hire two dozen $1,000/hour lawyers and tie up the process for decades and the only losers are humans. Even hummer boi clinton signed the repeal to Glass-Steagall. No one in actual power gives a happy fat fuck.

There's no one with a spine in places of power, like Teddy, that's interested in keeping the field level.

Added:

It would be an absolute necessity that political campaigns were funded by anything other than donations. ZERO campaign donations of any kind whatsoever. Period.

[roadscholar]

America’s most successful periods have been what I describe as “well-restrained capitalism.”

The less restrained, or poorly restrained, the more ghastly its consequences. And yes, that means Regulations. They should be well thought out, but they are vital. On the other hand, the profit motive engenders innovation and ambition. Without it, you get Soviet Russia.

For instance, sustainability benefits all. But unsustainable practices are profitable; hence very few will embrace sustainable practices voluntarily even against their own long-term interests. They will vanish without strong regulation... as will we all.

Balance, as it turns out, really is the key.

[AndyinPA]

The cancer stage of capitalism.

[John Thomas8]

The cancer stage of capitalism.

We're at Stage 5 now I think.

[Suranis]