[techno_tsar]

The “poor” in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings?

In so far as they have electrical heating, access to global food products, information technology, modern medical care, sure, plenty of people have a “higher standard of living” versus pre-industrialized societies. That’s a trivial statement. It’s vacuous.

Actually, what’s relevant is that the “poor” in any country have to work long, difficult jobs in order to survive. Some people even die or receive brutal injuries at work. And none of them are being compensated enough, because some people — like our version of medieval kings — don’t have to work at all.

In the context of this discussion, we have situations where people can’t afford to do obvious things that benefit themselves and others. I can’t point my finger and say “capitalism did this”, because the whole engine of human relations (economic, social, cultural) is incredibly vast, and capitalism is such a massive, loaded concept.

But I can sincerely say that somewhere along the line in this engine of human relations that there are very glaring issues that should make us question our sense of humanity.

I am not advocating for some massive, state sponsored rewriting of economic relations or technocratically calculated wealth transfers. The former was empirically a disaster in the 20th century. The latter is purely an academic debate. Nor am I saying that we ought to guilt trip people into donating more to support developers working on free projects. That feels manipulative, although making any community more self-sustaining and caring is obviously good.

I don’t know how fruitful parroting one of coldest takes (capitalism made people richer) can be in light of the lived realities of billions of people, working poor, passionate developers, and everyone who isn’t a 21st century robber baron. We are capable of being kinder and more open-minded.

The truth that society is constantly being reorganized every day. Even the shift from feudalism to “capitalism” happened over hundreds of years. In 300 years, people will look back at our current society and give it a name and analysis, because by then we would be living under a different paradigm. However, until then, future is what we make of it. And we could be more empathetic, and more imaginative.

[WalterBright]

> That’s a trivial statement.

Isn't it amazing that the wealth generated by capitalism is so enormous that people don't even notice it? Wow!

[bheadmaster]

Capitalism doesn't generate wealth - it's a paradigm of wealth distribution. People generate wealth, and they do so regardless of which wealth distribution system is in power.

Also your comment is snarky and uninformative, contrary to the spirit of HN discussion.

[nickpp]

Capitalism encourages generating wealth since people get to keep a slice of it, instead of being all looted by the state. The productivity gap is huge between the two systems.

This is why communist societies struggle to even provide the basic needs like food and clothes to their citizens while under capitalism citizens face a "tyranny of choice".

[bheadmaster]

> Capitalism encourages generating wealth since people get to keep a slice of it, instead of being all looted by the state. The productivity gap is huge between the two systems.

1) In current capitalist system, almost all the "slices" are taken by owners and banks. Most workers only get crumbs of the wealth they create.

2) Communism and capitalism are not the only two ways of distributing wealth - there's a huge contiuum between them (like European socialism), and a huge number of paradigms outside of them.

[WalterBright]

> almost all the "slices" are taken by owners and banks

That's what provides the incentives to produce.

As for "almost all", if you've ever run a business (I have) everyone you deal with has their hand out for a piece. The owner gets what is left over.

[bheadmaster]

> That's what provides the incentives to produce.

No, it's the threat of dying of hunger that provides the incentive to produce.

The fact that almost all slices are taken by owners and banks actually creates incentive to capture as much value as possible regardless of production of it.

[nickpp]

> "slices" are taken by owners and banks

It is quite trivial to become owner today. All you have to do is buy a share (or even a fraction of it!), and you can do it from your very phone - the wonders of Capitalism.

> huge contiuum between them (like European socialism)

That explains quite well the why Europe is falling so far behind USA in the 21st century: in the communism - capitalism continuum EU slid a little too much to the left.

> huge number of paradigms outside of them

Please do present them because I keep hearing they exist but nobody is giving any working, real-world tested examples.

[bheadmaster]

> Europe is falling so far behind USA

In which ways, exactly?

Healthcare in European countries is leagues above American healthcare for ordinary people, and so is social support system. In US, if you run out of money, you're simply left to starve or die of disease.

[WalterBright]

So communism, for example, generates the same wealth as a free market country, it just distributes it differently? History amply shows that to not be true.