• GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In terms of technological advances, or maximizing wellness of the maximum people?

        People of wealth travel from all over the world for access to the cutting edge techniques and treatments found in US institutions like mayo clinic and John Hopkins.

        The problem is the cost and access is very uneven.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Depends. Everything is a shade of gray.

            The advances they come from this system spread across the world. Obviously it isn’t the only way advances are made, and it doesn’t justify the exploitation, but the world certainly benefits from American healthcare research. (Again not implying important advances only come from America)

  • Chemish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some days I’m glad that I jumped ship from Reddit, and some days I realize that this is the alternative.

  • Belgdore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    The dumbest man says capitalism is the best possible economic system. This guy is right if he’s referring to global economic systems, because it’s been the only global economic system.

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is the real question. Communism is the main competition. We could try something in between like syndicalism, or some other version of socialism. But everything is theory because we’ve never tried a different system.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Communism could only work if everyone, seemingly under some hypnosis, all decided to discard wealth and possession and status and everything, all at once.

          If any meaningful fraction of the population retains capitalism, the influence of personal gain would override, as it has in the past.

          • Lordbaum@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes and no it was an authoritarian communism system (there are many subtypes of communism and even more subtypes of socialism) also you could argue if they were communist at all depending where you standing on the autocratic-libertarian spectrum since libertarians/Anarchists would say that the point of communism is not that the state owns the means of the production but the people themselves.

      • halvar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Global feudalism would be kinda weird, but theoretically it’s possible.

        • areyouevenreal@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Theoretically? It’s already happened. It was the dominant economic system across the world for a while including during the colonization of north America. It was fudalists who conquered large parts of the world. International trade is older than capitalism.

  • KTVX94@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So what’s the best one then? Communism/ socialism didn’t do very hot either. Unless there’s been some obscure, ancient economic system that I’m not aware of, there hasn’t been a non-theoretical economic system that’s been better than capitalism yet, as flawed as it is.

    I get there’s abundant evidence of the issues of the current system and the degenerate strategies it allows, but “capitalism bad haha” is getting stale.

    • wtry@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of the reason socialism didn’t do well is because the United States overthrew socialist countries that elected socialism and replaced them with capitalist dictators.

      • Farvana@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All you folks who downvoted this post, find me a communist country that the US didn’t try to coup

    • Lordbaum@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean socialism has and dose worked for millions of people. Imho The two main points of failure are imperialistic states like USSR and USA the second thing is authoritarian systems trying to force socialism (often it is just State-capitalism) on to the working class.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mercantlism.

      Yes, it’s considered “proto-Capitalism”, but its very distinct from how Capitalism is implemented in most countries nowadays.

      There are dozens of economic models and theories that mix ideas of capitalism and communism.

      • KTVX94@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I should look into it. Truth be told, there’s no pure capitalism or socialism. It’s really a bunch of economic sliders different countries balance more towards one side or the other throughout history. What I meant to say is A) systems that lean enough towards capitalism are the more successful even if they’re far from perfect and B) The way people throw around the “capitalism bad” idea just like that doesn’t help in any way and I’m tired of it. It’s a mix of raw frustration and copypasting of ideas without any real substance.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Marxists aren’t, or shouldn’t be, dogmatic. It’s the method that they uphold. Plus, Marx didn’t live to see the USSR, China, Cuba, etc, so it’s not possible to know whether he would maintain that position (taking your claim at face value).

      • halvar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Marx stated, that capitalism is a necessary step in the evolution of economy, and is better than anything before it and worse than communism. So the real question is whether he would have considered the aformentioned countries as ones that achived communism.