[s_kilk]

It really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles are born with nothing and die with nothing. Every tiny bit of surplus beyond maintenance of the body is siphoned away into the pockets of the capital class.

[adwhit]

Indeed, 1 in 6 are most likely 'struggling' already. The UK ruling class have really done an excellent job of squeezing the life (physical, financial and social) out of the average citizen. I don't think they quite realise what they've done, and how angry people are. It doesn't feel like a happy country at the moment.

[ionised]

My observation (as a UK citizen) is that vast swathes of the population have a severe and centuries-long case of Stockholm syndrome towards the ruling classes and landed elite.

They will profess patriotic support for private and for-profit schools having charity status and the incompetent and malicious political class that is churned out by these institutions, along with sycophantic support of the royal family and aristocracy in general.

The UK has systemic classism built into the very fabric of its society, and the ones claiming that classism is unhelpful and divisive tend to be the ones that wage class warfare against the poor and desperate.

[ams6110]

It's also remarkable how efficient it is at creating wealth for people willing to forego some immediate gratification.

My parents had over $1 million saved when they retired, and had never earned 6 figures in a year, combined. How? Investing a little every month in index funds in an IRA. Aside from that they also put two kids through college.

But yes, if you decide to spend every dollar you earn, capitalism will happily accomodate you.

[LaurensBER]

Do note, dollar.

In Europe the tax system works very different, e.g in The Netherlands they would tax you ~1.2% on the return of your stock investment tax plus the other taxes that you would pay means that for middle class incomes saving 1 million is basically impossible.

I assume that GB works exactly the same.

[petercooper]

Not really. In the UK we have "ISA" accounts which let you invest something like £20K per year at the moment and all gains are tax free. So after ten years you could have a £200K+ portfolio earning whatever. Except most people don't have £20K a year to invest, of course..

[ionised]

The point is, most of the struggling working class do not have the spare cash to invest in anything.

[_joel]

Completely this, if you have nothing.. then how do you begin to save?

[adekok]

Because in nature, organisms don't grow to the limits of their environment, right? They willingly limit their growth so that all enlightened organisms can share equally in a workers paradise, amidst songs of empowerment and fraternity, while marching collectively towards a bold new future!

Yeah... no.

Evolution shows us that organisms do grow to the limits of their environment. A "capitalist" system is no different. Making thinly-veiled religious statements about the evils of capitalism means rhetoric is more important to you than understanding.

Edit: for the nay-sayers, who seem to have missed my point: These behaviors aren't a result of capitalism. Blaming capitalism, or using ideological rehetoric, is wrong. These behaviors are a result of reality. Of evolution. Of the Dariwnian struggle for existence.

Blaming capitalism for these behaviors makes no more sense than blaming capitalism for a disease like malaria. Malaria was around long before capitalism, or even people, existed.

[musage]

You could replace capitalism with Nazism in a world ruled by it and you'd have the same "point". What you call understanding is obedience and sophistry, merely trying to get your subjective self out of the picture and trying to call the remaining mess objective.

> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself.

-- Noam Chomsky

> Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

[pygy_]

Provided resources are finite and the sun's output is constant, gradually limiting growth would indeed be wise unless we want to fall off a cliff at some point.

————

Edit: in response to your edit:

Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it can move to greener pastures.

What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-sufficient.

This is dangerous for humans.

[adekok]

> Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium.

Nonsense.

The only reason systems are in equilibrium is because of negative feedback. Predators eat prey. Diseases kill plants / animals, etc.

Remove the negative feedback, and you get un-checked growth.

This is basic biology...

[pygy_]

Negative feedback is part of healthy ecosystems, because resources _are_ limited. These loops are necessary for long term survival.

What you describe is cancer.

[adekok]

Systems do NOT "strive for equilibrium". The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment.

I'm not denying that negative feedback exists. I'm saying that without such feedback, systems always run out of control, because that's the biological imperative.

And no, growing systems are not cancer. That's just a ridiculous statement to make. Don't straw-man me FFS.

[pygy_]

> The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment.

Survival of the fittest. The fittest ecosystems are those who strive at equilibrium. Unchecked growth leads to boom bust cycles that are very destructive.

It may be an early propagation strategy (especially for autotrophs), but it is, in the long run, overcome by checks and balances. AFAIK short of catastrophic changes, ecosystems tend to reach equilibrium, because boom/bust is not competitive.

This is also true of diseases. New, aggressive strains that kill their host quickly usually evolve into milder versions of themselves that get better chances to spread (because the host survives longer).

Most animals have builtin growth limits that matches what they can reasonably extract from their environment. Within the boundaries of an individual, uncheck growth is literally cancer. BTW, you should have that growth on your nose checked (yeah, lame pun sorry ;-).

Humanity and its economy has a cancerous behavior right now. Even if the population stabilizes, economic growth requires a proportional growth in the consumption of resources (energy/matter) and thereby a proportional increase in entropy (heat/pollution/destruction/death).

At some point the rest of the earth won't be hospitable to us as a species, and that point may be precipitated by autonomous capital.

Farming and mining are being automated away. Transport is being automated. Manufacture has been for a long while.

Why would an automated market feed billions of idle meat bags? I don't know either.

Why do I care? I have kids, and I feel responsible for the mess I put them in.

[betaby]

But we pretend we are smart and capitalism is the best system. We believe we are better than amoebas.

[adekok]

For all my dislike of capitalism, there aren't many better systems. Perhaps capitalism leavened with some socialism (public roads, police, health care, etc.)

i.e. what most rich western societies have.

[reitanqild]

To add some detail here:

The last hundred years a number of political systems has been tested.

Compared to how almost every single communist experiment has ended, - and also nazism (far fewer examples but for some reason I really don’t want that either :-/) I far prefer what select lucky European countries and USA as well has done. Specifically I really think the European democracies has almost nailed it with reasonably good public health care, reasonable taxes all while still allowing and encouraging competition between for-profit companies.

"The advantage of communism is that everyone is equally poor. The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people are richer than others." - something I heard as a kid

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Winston S Churchill

[lucozade]

This is the UK. Capitalism has done a haphazard job of keeping the poor down. In fact, it's been highly selective at keeping the poor down.

Specifically, it's done an effective job on poor white, poor black men of Caribbean descent and poor Muslims (esp women) of Asian descent.

It's conspicuously failed to keep down poor Asians of Indian or Chinese descent and poor blacks of African descent.

Of course, there are some nay sayers who think that our brand of capitalism might not be the only reason for the persistence of poverty. There have, for example, been rumours that the cultural value of education correlates suspiciously well. Educational attainment definitely does (see ONS stats on same).

Fortunately, we all know that correlation is not causation. It follows, therefore, that no correlation is causation so it's probably capitalism. Unless it's racism. Yeah, it's probably racism.

[czechdeveloper]

It's more like people are used to extend their expenses to same amount as their earnings. Saving is not sexy, new car is.

[KekDemaga]

>It really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles are born with nothing and die with nothing.

Compared to what?

[edmccard]

Who says he's comparing it to anything? Maybe the remark is not about contrasting capitialism to some other system, but more about comparing its purported benefits to its actual outcome.

[reubeniv]

He does, 'efficient' is a relative term.

[KekDemaga]

Wouldn't that mean it's less of a capitalism problem and more of a problem generally since it hasn't been solved in any other economic system in practice?