Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[rong]

So the vid in rando thread about the guy who's daughter died of cancer got me thinking.

Let's say a 5 yr old kid has leukemia and it's parents are poor. Society has several options for it's care.

1. We pay for everything it needs to give it the best chance of survival.
2. We give it a bit of care but not as much as we would a rich kid.
3. We give it some care and bankrupt the parents.
4. We say tough shit kiddy, you ain't getting Jack.

It seems to me that capitalism favours 3 and 4 where as alternative set ups may favour 1 and 2.

[wufwugy]

So the vid in rando thread about the guy who's daughter died of cancer got me thinking.

Let's say a 5 yr old kid has leukemia and it's parents are poor. Society has several options for it's care.

1. We pay for everything it needs to give it the best chance of survival.
2. We give it a bit of care but not as much as we would a rich kid.
3. We give it some care and bankrupt the parents.
4. We say tough shit kiddy, you ain't getting Jack.

It seems to me that capitalism favours 3 and 4 where as alternative set ups may favour 1 and 2.

That sounds about accurate, but it's a mistake to assume that capitalism addresses everything. Capitalism is better for a bunch of very important things than any other system by far, but it isn't the only aspect of society. So if somebody says "well capitalism is immoral because it favors 3 and 4", I get to say "well capitalism isn't supposed to fully address this problem in the first place".

Of all the counters to capitalism, none work, and they're all far worse, but that doesn't mean capitalism addresses everything. But when you add welfarism to capitalism, now you're talking. The capitalist-welfarist model is tried and true. No other models are. To me it seems the derision of capitalism is just a giant straw man. Of course, a lot of its proponents are straw manning it too

[boost]

That sounds about accurate, but it's a mistake to assume that capitalism addresses everything. Capitalism is better for a bunch of very important things than any other system by far, but it isn't the only aspect of society. So if somebody says "well capitalism is immoral because it favors 3 and 4", I get to say "well capitalism isn't supposed to fully address this problem in the first place".

Of all the counters to capitalism, none work, and they're all far worse, but that doesn't mean capitalism addresses everything. But when you add welfarism to capitalism, now you're talking. The capitalist-welfarist model is tried and true. No other models are. To me it seems the derision of capitalism is just a giant straw man. Of course, a lot of its proponents are straw manning it too

Yeah, I'm really glad you keep pushing this idea that what people want-- the cause of their Scandinavian envy, is not socialism, but capitalism-welfarism. It's like an honest rebranding. It allows people on both sides to see the issue as it really is, without the false negative associations brought on by the words "communism" and "socialism". It's neither of those things, but people feel like it has to be since the capitalist/communist dichotomy has been pile-driven into their brains for the last half century.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, I'm really glad you keep pushing this idea that what people want-- the cause of their Scandinavian envy, is not socialism, but capitalism-welfarism. It's like an honest rebranding. It allows people on both sides to see the issue as it really is, without the false negative associations brought on by the words "communism" and "socialism". It's neither of those things, but people feel like it has to be since the capitalist/communist dichotomy has been pile-driven into their brains for the last half century.

yaaaayy somebody reads my poastsssss

Seriously though, we forget how big a deal the Cold War was, what it really meant, and how it impacted the views of most modern people today. I mean, when I learned that the Cold War ended in 1991, I was like wtffffffffffff that's so recent?!?! Yet so many of us act like it never existed.

We think of people like the Kochs as sinister and machiavellian, but much of their ideology really is about all that anti-communist stuff. They truly believe they are heroes of civilization when they support private individuals in the face of government intervention. They and almost everybody over 50 have a hard time thinking of government in other ways than the Soviet threat they battled, and they're not entirely wrong. I'm not defending the Kochs or people like them, as I think they have additional incentives and their ideas are archaic, but when you understand the depth of meaning behind the Cold War, I think so much is revealed about all sorts of interests represented by the Republican Party. It's things like if you don't know about the Cold War, the phrase "American exceptionalism" is conceited, but back in the early 90s, nothing was truer

It isn't untrue to say that United States was the savior of the civilization. It's a little pompous to say, but the Cold War really was a global battle of ideologies backed by militaries and vehemence, and the US was the main fighter on the side of right. It wasn't so much that the US was big and strong and extra-patriotic, but that the US was able to invest heavily in its allies in every region the Soviets attempted expansion

[Savy]

So the vid in rando thread about the guy who's daughter died of cancer got me thinking.

Let's say a 5 yr old kid has leukemia and it's parents are poor. Society has several options for it's care.

1. We pay for everything it needs to give it the best chance of survival.
2. We give it a bit of care but not as much as we would a rich kid.
3. We give it some care and bankrupt the parents.
4. We say tough shit kiddy, you ain't getting Jack.

It seems to me that capitalism favours 3 and 4 where as alternative set ups may favour 1 and 2.

However much you may hate it human life has a monetary value on it. Everyone should get a basic level of health care but sometimes you just get dealt a bad hand and that sucks dick. Obviously if you had a child who had some rare disease where the only treatment cost £1 million and had a 10% chance of survival if you had the money you'd cough it up without a doubt but I don't think you should expect society to cover the cost because they can't.

Obviously this becomes a much harder as the decision gets closer, but if money was used on stuff like that then someone else has to miss out.

[boost]

However much you may hate it human life has a monetary value on it. Everyone should get a basic level of health care but sometimes you just get dealt a bad hand and that sucks dick. Obviously if you had a child who had some rare disease where the only treatment cost £1 million and had a 10% chance of survival if you had the money you'd cough it up without a doubt but I don't think you should expect society to cover the cost because they can't.

Obviously this becomes a much harder as the decision gets closer, but if money was used on stuff like that then someone else has to miss out.

Wait, so now it's a zero sum game?

[Savy]

How many layers of profit are in that million?

What does profit margins have to do with it? At times very little, at times lots. Wasn't really the point.

Wait, so now it's a zero sum game?

Why does what I say make it a zero sum game? It's managing a limited amount of resources to try and provide the best possible service. The point was in a more socialist health service like the NHS it can't afford to give everyone the best possible treatment. The general level of service for everyone shouldn't be cut to save the lives of a tiny proportion of people. Some types of treatment or healthcare just don't make sense from a resource management perspective.

And unfortunately when we are working with finite resources decisions like spend x amount of money on a or b have to be made and for some people that's a death sentence but the point is to always try and pick the best possible choice.