this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22766 readers
335 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well-regulated markets are efficient ways of maximizing happiness when distributing scarce resources

???? Not under capitalism, well regulated or otherwise markets can only maximize one thing and that's profit, nothing else can be internalized, the minute scarce resources enter the capitalist market they're priced out of the hands of the majority of the population and subjected to unsustainable extraction processes

provided needs are all attended to and people have a roughly similar ability to participate.

Nothing like this has ever been true in the entire history of capitalism, not even in the most benign subnational local markets; "attended needs" and "similar ability to participate" would be internalized in the market as a demand crash or as a crowded out market

Aggregate Neoclassical thoery is bunk dude, it's been bunk since Anwar Shaikh exploded its major fundamental precept in 1974

Also there's not much point in being a liberal if someone's not a capitalist, since the entire point of liberalism is to justify the continued existence of capitalism

[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

When did I say it's efficient under capitalism?

(And most liberals aren't capitalists whether you think there's a point to that or not)

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 3 points 9 months ago

When did I say it's efficient under capitalism?

Do you have any other examples of existing markets?

(And most liberals aren't capitalists whether you think there's a point to that or not)

I meant capitalist supporters