r/unpopularopinion May 04 '21

The people who most strongly advocate against capitalism are the ones who have already profited so much off of it.

Living in NYC, you see a bunch of people who hate capitalism for whatever reason. A majority of those that do tend to be born as upper middle class women which doesn’t make sense to me. For starters, most of these people come from well-off backgrounds with parents who are lawyers, doctors, businessmen etc who are most certainly participants within the stock market. Due to this, growing up they’re often able to have the luxury of affording the best education possible and usually don’t have to worry about money. I guess somewhere along the line the thought process shifts while attending one of those elite undergraduate schools due to all of the debt that is acquired which is no ones fault but their own. No one forced you to pursue a low-paying career while also taking out a boatload of debt to go to a prestigious undergrad so you can feel superior to everyone else. They end up adopting this kind of victim mentality where anyone who works in a high paying job like finance is automatically a bad person. Theres a good portion of people in these careers who work long, hard hours in order to improve their lives and the lives of their future families, but they end up being demonized because of this smart career choice. Do they not realize that the same people they demonize for contributing to a capitalistic society are also their own family members who at one point started from the very bottom as well? Their entire upbringing has been centered around capitalism and now that they’re struggling due to the life choices that have been made, they expect society to shift in order to cater to them.

Edit: The title still stands as correct. The paragraph is catered towards large metropolitan cities, specifically NYC, but you’ll find these people in every city.

7k Upvotes

View all comments

91

u/backupstrapon May 04 '21

Uh, I can't speak to the specific example you've provided, but historically and currently I'm very certain that it is the people most exploited by the capitalist system that criticize it.

Also, keep in mind that lot of people, either against or for it, tend to not really understand what capitalism is when they speak on it.

7

u/pearlday May 04 '21

Immigrants are the ones exploited the most, and most immigrants (not talking about their kids here) are pro-capitalist and anti-socialism. The reason is because most immigrants come to the US fleeing socialist, fascist, communist etc. regimes. My mom is an example, she left Peru and gained american citizenship because the military was in charge and repossessing properties. I have friends who’s parents fled Mao Zedong / China. Maybe the US isn’t doing super great now, but 30 years ago immigration into the US for economic mobility was huge and mostly successful.

3

u/backupstrapon May 04 '21

I doubt most people make decisions to migrate to another country based on their economic system preferences -- it's more of just a "my country is poor/corrupt/dangerous, so I'm going to go to a more stable country" thing.

The average person tends to not have much understanding of economics in general.

Most immigrants migrate to the US from other capitalist countries.

4

u/viburnum608 May 04 '21

One of the guys I work with got his PhD in mechanical engineering and fled his country due in large part to socialism. No need to assume the immigrants coming to the US are all stupid and just fleeing due to violence.

0

u/backupstrapon May 04 '21

What country and time period? And what exactly did he not like about his country?

I also never said anyone was stupid. It's completely accurate to say that the average person doesn't know much about economics, just like how the average person doesn't know much about medicine, or martial arts, or any specialized field. Not having specialized knowledge doesn't make you stupid.

I also didn't say people flee other countries because of just violence. Violence is totally a thing that convinces people to immigrate, but it's one of a number of possibilities.

1

u/pearlday May 04 '21

Government takes my house. I go to country where government cannot take my house.

You do not need to understand supply and demand, to have a preference for small government.

2

u/B1G__Tuna May 04 '21

Yeah, except houses can be easily taken in the US as well. Especially if a private company wants the land your house sits on.

1

u/pearlday May 04 '21
  1. You can go to court against it, which is what the folks in your article did,

  2. You get paid for the property,

  3. If the appeal fails, you can try to vote in new elected officials.

None of these are options in socialist/communist/fascist countries that take your land. You want to fight it? You get sent to prison if not shot.

1

u/backupstrapon May 04 '21

Yeah, an oppressive government is also a common reason people immigrate. I already said in my previous comment that there are several reasons people decide to flee their home country.

Also, the US government has totally taken people's houses.

1

u/pearlday May 04 '21

Im sorry have you spoken to immigrants or looked at studies?

2

u/backupstrapon May 04 '21

Yes.

It also just makes complete sense. Like 99% of all countries are capitalist.

68

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

“Ask a socialist to tell you what’s wrong with capitalism and they will give you a well thought out list of reasons. Ask a capitalist what’s wrong with socialism and they will describe capitalism.”

3

u/MrSpotgold May 04 '21

Wish I could upvote this post 100 times...

34

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

"everyone is stupid except me" vibes right here

14

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

What's wrong with socialism?

-20

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Downvote this if you have small pp

15

u/bunnigan May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

When a mfer doesn’t understand socialism whatsoever

Edit: lmao the guy had such an awful definition of socialism he changed his comment altogether

-7

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Tell me about how great socialism is

10

u/RacistsAreFacts May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

You get the value of your labor even if you're not already a wealthy capitalist. You aren't excluded from the means of production just because you don't have capital.

Or by "tell me about how great socialism is" do you just mean "let's talk about Venezuela and the USSR."

-4

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

I want to know a real socialist country that is more efficient than Germany or the US. Scandinavia isn't socialist before u ask

6

u/RacistsAreFacts May 04 '21

I want to know a real socialist country period.

→ More replies

3

u/Ajogen May 04 '21

Lol what. This is so wrong I’ll have to bill you to set you straight

1

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Wanna see a trick?

3

u/Ajogen May 04 '21

Go on then haha. Show me your wizard knowledge

0

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

It's done, look back at the original comment

3

u/Ajogen May 04 '21

That’s about the level of debate skill you get met by the opposition. Good job

→ More replies

11

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

It seems like you're confusing capitalism with a Meritocracy. Also socialism does work? There are absolutely instances of corruption but a lot of that comes from the USA's influence starting after WW2. As far as the improvement argument, do you think a Wall Street Broker is BETTER than a Farmer. If so, why?

-4

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

I said inefficient

7

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

How so? I'd like you to make an argument so I can better understand your perspective and you can understand mine.

1

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Just as an example Soviet and Chinese agriculture in the 60s and 70s compared to American agriculture they produce way less than their Yankees counterparts and caused millions to starve to death as a consequence. The lack of reason to work hard breaks the production efficiency and causes millions to suffer as a consequence

6

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

That's not the case in socialized countries today. I'm not well versed in Asian agriculture but I would assume that there are more facets to the growing of plants for consumption than the work you put in. That would be similar to equating the dust bowl with capitalism and only when FDR's socialist/collectivist principles took hold people were able to grow again. See the false dichotomy?

→ More replies

11

u/Nesurame May 04 '21

I could say the same thing about Capitalism.

It's inefficient for the money to only be at the top of the economy

It doesn't promote innovation, it just promotes the destruction of competition

Under Capitalism, people get fired and their responsibilities are transferred to their co-workers for no extra pay.

1

u/deluging May 04 '21

Destruction of competition and innovation are not mutually exclusive.

-6

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Capitalism is the most efficient system, inefficient businesses go broke if they can't adjust.

A new product can be game changer for the market( like the playstation was or how the iPhone was a revolution for phones)

9

u/Nesurame May 04 '21

Our Gov't bails out inefficient large businesses pretty consistently, which kinda negates your first point.

New products are few and far between nowadays, just look at car models; they've become homogenous instead of innovative. Apple releases new iPhones pretty regularly and purposefully slows down old ones to force you into buying a new one, which is extortion and not innovation. Sports games release the same game every year with very few changes apart from the rosters.

2

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21
  1. Fuck the government(hope we can agree on this one)

  2. The game industry is a great example. Genres where cartels create like in football with fifa, you see terrible products and unhappy customers, now on more open genres like shooters or platform games you have plenty of options with almost every year having a great game. The problem isn't the system, it's the abusers that will kill for power

3

u/The_Louster May 04 '21

It’s not the government’s fault for the bailouts. Congress during the ‘08 Crisis was staunchly against the bailouts but were bombarded from all sides to do it until they caved. The wall street banks, the Bush Administration, and the Federal Reserve all hounded at Congress.

Even more despicable is the Federal Reserve had many tools to easily deal with the crisis, but chose to go with the option with the highest moral hazard.

→ More replies

5

u/RacistsAreFacts May 04 '21

People like Jeffrey Epstein can thrive in capitalism because people want bad things and capitalism doesn't say people have a right to live without giving others what they want or having capital.

But a lot of people really don't care about that, as they delude themselves into thinking absolutely everyone can be a billionaire under capitalism.

2

u/SuperMazziveH3r0 May 04 '21

You act like projects just withering away in large corporation’s bureaucratic process isn’t a thing

1

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

You can create your own product and launch it yourself, yes it is harder to sell compared to established companies(especially things like a console) but those guys worked before you ans someone created that business and had the vision and skills to invest and create a product people would buy, if the products sucks now, don't buy it and look for alternatives

2

u/SuperMazziveH3r0 May 04 '21

You didn’t address how that fixes the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy.

It’s laughable for you to think capitalism exists in this perfect plain where inefficiency doesn’t exist.

→ More replies

1

u/Ajogen May 04 '21

Yeah. Like in 2008?

-2

u/NorthBlizzard May 04 '21

Note how they ask and then downvote the answer to hide it lmao

1

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Reddit in a nutshell

-2

u/deluging May 04 '21

Socialism means that the means of production are owned by the workers. This doesn't work if we want to innovate and grow as a society. The most common reasons for starting businesses are to innovate and make money, and they are not mutually exclusive. If the workers own the profit, then why would anyone want to start a business and innovate? This is not to mention the past examples of socialism that didn't work.

1

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

Lol, ever heard of the mondragon CO-OP?

-1

u/deluging May 04 '21

Is Spain a communist country? It isn't, so then what is stopping you from doing the same here in North America? This isn't to mention that you are nitpicking an example that worked, just like how socialists complain that people only bring up the Soviet Union.

0

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

Lol, no Spain isn't a communist country but it IS a socialist country. I gave you an example of common sense socialist and democratic workplace reform being effective in modern markets, effectively disproving your claims about socialism. The Soviet Union was a state capitalist economy. Read what Trotsky said about the USSR and you'll see that most Socialists and Communists hated Stalin for betraying them and Marxist Ideals. Also I'm not a Communist so I don't know why you're bringing that up.

1

u/deluging May 04 '21

After doing more research on the company, it is not even a socialist company. The U.S. doesn't prevent this either.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/323/are-worker-cooperatives-socialist-capitalist-or-their-own-category
Now, we might have a little misunderstanding here about the interpretation of socialism. Perhaps in your eyes, some countries are socialist while in my eyes some countries aren't. For example, I have no problem with countries like Spain. I have problems with countries like the USSR.

1

u/peacock_trickster May 04 '21

It absolutely is a socialist Co-op. I think we can agree that the USSR is bad and places like Spain, France Finland, and Norway are better countries to live in. They are all countries that have adopted socialist and democratic practices to monitor their capitalism. That is what I suggest we should do in the US.

→ More replies

10

u/NEREVAR117 May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

It's very commonly true if you get in a debate about the two subjects. The criticisms people throw at socialism are often things capitalism does.

-25

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

Big “I don’t really understand economic systems” vibe right here

21

u/mcshadypants May 04 '21

Yea because economics courses teach that socialism is better than a free market society /s tf are you talking about dude

-10

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

If you’re talking about Marxist socialism, no shit, but the modern idea of socialism is quite doable and would benefit society a lot better than raw capitalism. The idea is basically to get rid of privately owned corporations and everything becomes a worker co-op, where everyone gets a say in how the company is run. It is actually taught this way by professor Richard Wolff of the university of Amherst, so maybe you should go get an education if you want to shit post and act superior.

15

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

Just sounds like the original with modern in the front

4

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

The difference is that it would still be a free market, not a demand economy. It’s still basically capitalism, but the workers own the means of production/distribution.

7

u/TheRoger47 May 04 '21

So kinda of like direct democracy but for a company?

-3

u/thehogshotgun May 04 '21

Brooo I was gonna get some friends together and start a business where we all own the means of production but then big buisness stopped me or some shit. No ones stopping you from doing this, if it was really so great we would see it in more than a very limited amount of cases

5

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

Big business is consistently what’s keeping workers from organizing, are you simple? What do you think lobbying is for? Why do you think there is a fuck ton of dark money in politics? Do you think they’re buying politicians for the fun of it?

→ More replies

3

u/Paolo31000 May 04 '21

No, no you are actually wrong. That is communism not socialism, despite the fact that they are often used interchangeably. The reality is that mixed market economies are the best because they provide social mobility whilst incentivising individuals to make a profit. The reality is that all of the technological progress and more often medicinal have come about through the desire to make a profit than to better someone else's life.

The argument that it would be run by workers doesn't make sense because most companies wouldn't exist today if the CEO would have have ended up on the same salary as the average worker. The question people often mean to ask is the extent to which socialism should be practiced? Rather than if it should.

Education is also a form of socialism, doesn't mean its automatically bad for the economy.

0

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

I agree about mixed market economies being much stronger, but your claim about all technological progress, especially medicinal, fall short when looking at people like Jonas Salk, who invented the modern vaccine and didn’t patent it. Furthermore, worker owned companies can make up their own incentives to spur technological advancement, you don’t need to only have system incentive. If we held onto patent law, companies could easily make enough profits to give bonuses to inventors, as long as the workers agree to it.

1

u/Paolo31000 May 04 '21

Thanks for adding your perspective onto the incentive section, you are right, but they are not as common. However, worker owned companies would actually not work, because the product would have to be invented, which isn't exactly something your average worker e.g. factory worker can do, hence if the product doesn't exist, neither does the company. Patents prevent companies from having their individual works being stolen so it is useful, that's not to say that some companies can't have too many.

-1

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

So, King Arthur flour had to invent flour milling in order to become a coop? All the grocery co-ops in the country had to invent... groceries? Restaurant co-ops would have to invent... serving food in order to exist? The point your argument is missing is that co-ops help maintain a company by more equally distributing profits. You could also easily have a system where architects and engineers form a cooperatively owned design firm, and if they don’t want to split the profits from their IP, they can go to a cooperatively owned factory where workers would get paid a living wage to make the products. If you break up the vertical monopolies, suddenly everything is possible.

→ More replies

5

u/almon_m May 04 '21

Damn that sounds awful, all workers getting a say in how a company is run? Thats dumb af

6

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

It actually works quite well in practice. Ever heard of King Arthur flour? Worker owned co-op.

2

u/almon_m May 04 '21

Only became one after the company was well established, and just cuz it works once doesnt mean it always will, too many idiots for it to be viable

2

u/accelaone May 04 '21

What's your favorite flavor of boot?

1

u/almon_m May 04 '21

My favourite flavour is understanding managment

1

u/guyuri May 04 '21

...what does this mean?

→ More replies

-1

u/jenga_be_groovin May 04 '21

well, without ALL the workers, there would be NO company :)

3

u/nexus8000 May 04 '21

The owner was there before the workers. The company would still be there, just much smaller.

1

u/oni-noshi May 04 '21

Most corporations are publicly traded not privately owned.. most also offer stock options to employees, and employment contracts are not slave papers.. co-ops at the scale you are talking about are no better.. you are just changing the name of who makes the rules..

0

u/rbwartlom May 04 '21

I mean no one is telling people they can’t do cop-ops so if they were better surely a lot of corporations would be co-ops

0

u/ZarcoTheNarco May 04 '21

Private education benefits heavily from capitalism, why would they tell you that something else is better for YOU?

The state will not hand over the knowledge that allows you or incentivizes you to overthrow it, the same goes for private education.

1

u/mcshadypants May 04 '21

Tf are you saying that all the facts that they are teaching college students are making them dumber!? Let me guess what else you believe, the moon landing was a hoax, nasa is fake, the earth is flat, covid is fake and lizards are running the world. College isn't where you go to get "told" things. You are given data and tought the tools you need to analyze it for any given field. You conspiracy theorists need to stop breeding, you're evolving us backwards.

1

u/ZarcoTheNarco May 04 '21

I belive literally none of what you said except that college is making people dumber per say.

Its undermining class consciousness and maintaining the propaganda power of the capitalist class because the owners of these colleges or other manners of private education benefit from it.

1

u/mcshadypants May 04 '21

Seems like a pretty bold statement since economic professors would directly need to be in on this massive play. They would need to specifically bob and weave to avoid touching on certain subject matters. Id assume that book manufacturers, these professors, and everyone above them would need kickbacks to propagate this farce along with hundreds of thousands fake peer reviewed papers written for at least a hundred years to propagate this farce. Im sorry but this seems like absolute horseshit. The economic professors that I had would NEVER go along with this especially the ones with tenure...lets say you are right and they did spend what I would assume would be trillions of dollars around the world to cover this up...why...wtf would they cover it up when nobody cares. You think the world would revolt. 99% of the people ive met in my life think hand gun rights or abortion laws are more pressing issues than overfishing. They can only see 5 seconds ahead because people are fucking dumb. Nothing would happen if they taught socialism was better in college. I know because if you take a government course in college they teach you that its incredibly corrupt, and nobody batts an eye. I just don't feel like this is even remotely in the realm of reality. Its utter nonsense

-1

u/FortniteChicken May 04 '21

So creating market inefficiency is now what’s wrong with capitalism ?

2

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

Ah, I forgot capitalism doesn’t rely on boom and bust cycles, wouldn’t that be a major market inefficiency?

1

u/FortniteChicken May 04 '21

It doesn’t rely on them, it’s just something that happens.

Better for a bust to get rid of inefficient businesses than a state prop them up beyond them being profitable

1

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

What do you think that late stage capitalism leads to? Small businesses having a voice in government? Capitalism will always lead to unfettered corruption since the wealthy can just buy their way into government, and that leads to a reduction in competition, the whole point of free markets.

2

u/i_hate_android_p May 04 '21

How does socialism prevent thism

2

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

Modern socialism wouldn’t necessarily prevent this entirely, but it would ensure that when it goes bust, people have somewhat of a safety net without having to resort to massive government spending. When workers own and democratically control a company, they tend to insulate themselves a bit from economic downturns because everyone would have more resources during the boom.

2

u/FortniteChicken May 04 '21

If government is willing to bail out companies, worker owned or otherwise, it completely removes incentives to responsibly prepare for economic downturns

4

u/fordanjairbanks May 04 '21

Again, you’re describing the capitalistic system we have now.

Edit: to clarify, my point is that socialism would lead to less government bailouts.

→ More replies