[gtsop]

> if there is a word for this phenomenon for how our system has gotten into such a rotten stat

There is, it's the system's name: Capitalism

Noone ever in the universe claimed that this system serves primarily the needs of humans. It serves profit. Now there is a ven diagram that has a union area between profits and needs, but the system does not care about making this union bigger, it cares about making the profits bigger. When that overlaps with needs... it is just a happy side effect.

[whimsicalism]

and yet the largest group of professional utilitarians in the world (economists) largely do claim what you are saying ‘nobody even in the universe’ would.

transitive preference satisfaction is generally a pretty good framework. if you give more people what they want, you get more of what you want in turn.

[benlivengood]

Free markets are not unbridled capitalism; capitalism needs strong trust-busting and anti-monopoly enforcement.

[kannanvijayan]

I tend to agree with this sentiment, but my takeaway is slightly different.

People who would describe themselves as supporters of "capitalism", as well as supporters of "communism" or "socialism", are not able to admit that their belief systems are actually religious in structure. Not spiritual perhaps, but effectively "secular religions".

Both capitalism and its nemesis arose in the mid 1900s, when humanity was obsessed with modernist thinking about "solving problems once and for all". And in that context, the people fell in love with these two "clean systems". A more perfect set of rules.

Sure, capitalism doesn't claim to be the most powerful god. But in surrogacy, it claims to be "the least imperfect system". Which is structurally the same claim: declaring the scripture to be some apex that is not surpassable.

The main difference between communism and capitalism was how it was implemented. The USSR went full-tilt ideologically rigid, and collapsed very quickly. The US didn't go full-tilt capitalism. It implemented a hybrid system with a high marginal tax, welfare programs, subsidies, labour unions, public works projects, along with a market system, and that hybrid non-ideologically rigid model served it well.

Around the time it was clear the USSR was collapsing, the USA went hard tilt in favour of ideological purity in capitalism. Systematic series of clawbacks in the tax regime, privatization, elimination of labour unions.

As they leaned into the religion, it was used against them, much like the communist religion was used against the people of the USSR. And now they have been robbed of their prosperity, of the value of their efforts, much like the people in the USSR were robbed.

[Imustaskforhelp]

Nice read but we also have democracy to prevent things but it still feels effectively hi-jacked by such fictional constructs like capitalism and the lobbying power

Theoretically we should be able to think of the majorities or ourselves and we can have a good system

but we also feel like a lack of choice I suppose, the elections feel between just two parties with choosing the lesser evil (I think zohran is cool tho in the democratic party and maybe he could signify some good things I guess)

Personally I feel like we need to focus more on the incentives and competency of people more than anything and try to vote it on that and not what they speak I suppose.

[cess11]

'Both capitalism and its nemesis arose in the mid 1900s, when humanity was obsessed with modernist thinking about "solving problems once and for all". And in that context, the people fell in love with these two "clean systems". A more perfect set of rules.'

All of this is junk. Karl Polanyi famously puts the birth of capitalism very late compared to other important thinkers, in 1834, by defining it as characterised by markets of fictitious commodities, i.e. stuff like labour, land, money. More mainstream would be to point to the Renaissance or british 16th century.

The idea that capitalism and communism would be dependent on an art movement of the early 20th century is quite bizarre, the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 and by the late 19th century when modernism started to form unions and communist parties were already common.

Actually, modernism is a reaction to the apparent stalling of 'progress', WWI and nostalgia for the optimism of the early modern period. I.e. from 1500 to late 1800s. In part it was also a reaction to what is usually called modern physics, i.e. things like newtonianism and ether hypotheses breaking down in due to Michelson-Morley and early study of quantum phenomena, relativity and so on.

[whimsicalism]

another absurd ahistorical comment on HN, where capitalism apparently arose in the mid 20th century despite the long-standing pre-existence of stock issuing multinationals, wage laborers, currency-mediated trade, reserve banking, etc.