Gen Z embraces 'safety capitalism', says current social safety net is broken
Gen Z embraces 'safety capitalism', says current social safety net is broken
Gen Zers are embracing "safety capitalism" because they think the current social safety net is insufficient.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Corporations entrenching their power via statist means is a function of Capitalism. As Capitalists gain power over markets, they too gain influence over the state.
The government itself is only an issue if it's a bourgeois state, like it is in America. A bourgeois state will act in the interests of the bourgeoisie over the Proletariat and petite bourgeoisie, because the few that make up the bourgeoisie have more money and influence than the entirety of the Proletariat when it comes to political and media influence.
The state intervention is not part of capitalism, that is the exact opposite. You can say it is an inevitable consequence and I would agree to some extent, but what is happening in america is a corrupt system having nothing to do with capitalism. When the federal government controls the currency supply, and takes something like 5 trillion out of the system, that is nothing capitalistic to that.
You seem to not understand what Capitalism is.
Capitalism doesn't simply mean "markets."
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capital Owners buy and sell Capital, with which they pay wage laborers to use said Capital to produce Commodities in an M-C-M' circuit, where M is a money supply, C is the commodity produced using M money, and M' is the greater sum of Money.
The federal government being twisted by Capitalists that have grown to excessively large statuses with dragon hoards of their own in order to protect their interests is 100% the result of Capitalism.
The corruption absolutely is due to Capitalism, and to pretend it isn't is intentional blindness.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I disagree that it is a necessary part. Corruption is inherent in every system that I am aware of, but it doesnt need to be part of it. Right now, we could reduce the federal government to 1/10th of what it is with no problems, and that would be closer to true capitalism. The system currently just recirculates the money to the rich because the governmet is so big and it controls what we do.
There is no one true capitalism.
I get it, but things are more and less capitalistic, and we are quite far from capitalism.
On the contrary, we are one of the most Capitalist nations on the planet.
You're frankly wrong.
The federal government provides invaluable services that help the Proletariat, such as social safety nets. These cannot be gotten rid of. Same with the education system. Same with union protections, minimum wage, OSHA, and other invaluable worker protections.
If we went to a more Laissez-faire system (we have true Capitalism now, Laissez-faire is no more "true," just less statist), we would have far more problems, and the state would build itself back even more exploitative and ruthless.
You have to abolish Capitalism to get rid of its corruption.
The discussion on if what the government does is good or bad is a separate discussion, I am just pointing out that almost all of it is not necessary for the function of the economy. And the bigger the government is, the more they control what we do, and the more the power get taken from us and given to the wealthy directly from the government power, which is the opposite of capitalism.
Almost all of it is necessary.
The bigger the government does not actually mean your liberties are taken away. Single Payer Healthcare would be a massive expansion of government yet would give far more freedom to the people than the current Capitalist pharmaceutical industry. Government size doesn't correlate with increased control and decreased rights, Capitalism does.
The wealthy building government to further entrench them is Capitalism at work, it is not the opposite.
I'm not sure why you don't understand this, you're literally on an anti-capitalist structure to avoid the issues of Capitalist Reddit.
I agree that it can be big but also benefit the people more which is why the Scandinavian countries are higher typically on the economic freedom index. I dont think that is what our government is. Literally the biggest issue I have in my work (real estate and housing) is the government. The government is what makes housing expensive and devalues your wages, and none of that needs to happen, its all anti-capitalist policy decisions that happen because the government is so big.
Reddit is authoritarian not capitalist.
-
The Economic Freedom Index is largely bullshit, but even then the Scandinavian countries have more generous social safety nets, not less generous. They have higher rates of socialization, ie their economy is predominantly Capitalist but they have key industries nationalized.
-
The government making housing worse is more due to Capitalism, again. The only reason rent is high is because Capitalists are greedy and rent-seeking. This is pro-Capitalism. Anti-capitalism would be decommodification of housing, which isn't happening.
-
Reddit is Capitalist. It's privately owned by Capitalists. Capitalism itself is more authoritarian than Socialism, in Capitalism only Capitalists have power, in Socialism the Workers do. Lemmy is a good example of denying Capitalist dictatorial control by rejecting individual ownership.
Everyone pays for their own safety not, not just the rich (which is what happens in america).
Full stop; housing is my buisness, I know what its expensive, and it is 99% the government making things hard, and how they control the money system. If you dont recognize that then you wont be able to undestand anything else.
The rich pay less in taxes in America.
I understand that housing is your business. You don't understand what is and isn't caused by Capitalism because you assume it means Laissez-faire, when it does not. If you don't recognize that then you won't be able to understand anything else.
-
Capitalism requires the state to function. Directly with all the laws, regulations, and courts that allow businesses to exist as legal entities, determine who owns private property, contract law, etc. Indirectly, because capitalism tends to collapse every 10 years or so, and without safety nets or bailouts, there would be a revolution.
I agree, but that system you are referring to is a very very small part of the current government. And no, capitalism doesnt just collaspe via revolution every 10 years, its the most stable system.
Capitalism does collapse ~10 years in the U.S., and requires great intervention by the government or federal reserve. E.g. 1981, 1990, 2000, 2008, 2020. I'm arguing that without the intervention or social safety nets, and families started starving, there would be a revolution.
Sigh, the federal reserves is literally the reason "capitalism" is going to fail. If you want I can explain what the federal reserve does and how it harm you, but you guys never seem to want to know that information.
I understand the Fed pretty well. I'm going to assume you listen to the Austrian economic school, or are just a crypto bro, whereas I tend to like the New Keyenesian school; as long as we're keeping a capitalist system. Austrian school lacks mathematical rigor and libertarians just like it just because it's prescriptions align with their ideaology, IMO.
Of all the groups the libertarians are the only ones that actually understand economics. Both of the major parties live in imaginary money land where the fed solves problems and save the world. The issue with the fed is direct and obvious.