I think one depressing example is innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields. "If we don't build it, someone else will first" is unfortunately historically been shown to be true, has it not?
Today's unsavory borderline reactionary doomposting brought to you by: my crippling fear that I'm isolating myself in a political echo-chamber (so naturally I gotta hop online and exclusively ask my fellow leftists)
The one that I get is "competition breeds innovation". I think they're just wrong that it should always be monetary competition. Personal-prestige competition (such as academic reputations) can also be a powerful motivator. The USSR had a bit of this going on in the various OKBs.
Having dabbled in academia I have witnessed firsthand that no amount of economic/business rivalry will ever measure up to the unhinged competition of fanatically curious nerds
Capitalism is better at making treats than any AES state was
soviet lack of light industry was actually kindof a problem for them
the love I have for certain branded kitchen appliances is shameful
The variety of things that can be turned into corndogs is truly the height of capitalist innovation.
It really is, and socialists under estimate how important corndogification is for the masses
Let's be real, Americans didn't start dominating the treat game until the 70s, and half of that can be traced back to Japanese innovations in convenience and electronics
I'm Russian and I was amazed to find out that popcorn is ancient and Americans actually had special machines for making even in the 1910s. We never got that shit even after khrush's initiative, and we love movies no less than americans. Popcorn became a thing there in the 90s
Exactly. I dont need 25 different flavours of Monster Energy drinks ... It is nice though.
innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields
Once upon a time, before finance capital took over, sure I guess. But, just look at hypersonic missiles. Every attempt by Lockheed-Martin to launch one blows up on the launch pad, and China keeps one-upping themselves in that space.
they understand that the universe is a vicious, dark, cold place that will turn you into a monster
they just think that's cool
Can we truly say capitalism does anything "right" or "well" when it inevitably leads to societal and ecological collapse?
Even when it wins, in the long term it loses.
productive forcesAlthough look at the Soviet Union between 1924-1945
Even China's HSR doesn't fall under a capitalist model
I think one depressing example is innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields. "If we don't build it, someone else will first" is unfortunately historically been shown to be true, has it not?
Capitalism didn't introduce "innovation" nor did Capitalism introduce "competition". People were technologically innovating before capitalism and will be technologically innovating after capitalism. "If we don't build it, someone else will first" was just as motivating a factor in warfare in the year 2024 BCE as it is in 2024 CE.
Capitalism is not an invention on a tech tree in a civilization video game. Capitalism is a unique historical confluence of several things happening around the same time: Rapid industrialization, the end of feudalism and serfdom, proletarianization of the peasantry, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the fall of the landed aristocracy, wage labor becoming the dominant form of labor, the destruction of the guild system, the creation of the factory system, hyperspecialization (division of labor always existed by hyperspecialization was unique in that you'd spend 12 hours in a factory doing exactly 1 task in the 19th century assembly line, rendering you unable to learn other skills or have any free time after work) the creation of the international credit system and national banks, the creation of the world economy, and the reproduction of capital through the appropriation of surplus value.
Another thing people don't understand about Capitalism is that Capitalism comes after Capital. Marx goes into nauseating detail talking about Pre-existing forms of capital, like merchant's capital, and usurer's capital, which predate industrial capital. Some people think capitalism simply means private property plus money plus trade. No. Those things have always existed. Capitalism involves a bit more than that. At least in the Marxist analysis.
If you're looking for things unique to capitalism as conceived by Marx: it was proletarianization, hyperspecialization, and industrial capital.
honestly idk if weapons are an exampl of capitalism getting it right. I mean I guess, but only if you mean the bourgeois state not just capitalists of their own accord, they need a lot of prompting and funding to develop anything
There’s only one thing that can break through an echo-chamber: dialectical materialism
They organize and put in work. Landlords and small business ghouls are always part of some organization, or email blast, or chamber of commerce, etc. Sometimes they need to show up to meetings and do what they're told to do (i.e. support X bill or donate to Y cause). And they will because the benefits they receive are worth the expense.
Usually though thats because they have enough cash to make it several peoples full time jobs.
I don't disagree buts that's sort of avoiding the point. There are endless examples of large groups of non unionized workers who could collect their money and pay someone (a union rep) a full time salary to support and advance their interests. They have the cash but they still don't execute for a variety of other reasons.
It's not just access to money and cash.
I think this is probably the wrong question to ask unless you mean "In what ways has capitalism been historically progressive compared to feudalism?" or something along those lines. Neoliberal capitalism is purely reactionary.
understood exactly the wrong half
