• oneeyestrengthens@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 months ago

    This post is completely absurd. All of these things have happened in spite of capitalism and they’ve developed simultaneously in non-capitalist states. We (mostly) have access to clean drinking water because of environmental activism that forced companies to stop dumping industrial waste in bodies of water. We have access to healthcare because activists maneuvered politically to ensure it became a right, not a privilege. That’s to say nothing of developing capitalist countries that offer none of these privileges to their people. Capitalism didn’t give us these things. If you spend any amount of time reading about the history of labor or the development of regulatory bodies, capital has hindered social progress wherever possible to avoid any restrictions or taxation. These things were demanded and fought for by the people they were affecting. Industry and finance are owed none of the credit.

      • oneeyestrengthens@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        No I’m not. Capital usually refers to the individuals or corporate bodies that control or direct investment. Capital is the anticident to capitalism.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          And under capitalism, capital and labour are generally in conflict. Same way most capital owners are in conflict with each other (that’s basically the engine of growth.)

          Saying that labour battled for these advancements is no more an indictment of capitalism than the fact that McDonalds battles with Wendys for revenue.

          • oneeyestrengthens@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not indicting capitalism. My point was that capitalism isn’t responsible for the last century of social improvement.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              But it is, because capitalism produces enormous amounts of wealth and without that wealth we wouldn’t have had those improvements.

              • oneeyestrengthens@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Nonsense. The op originally cited things like childhood mortality, water cleanliness, access to doctors. First of all, non-capitalist economies have seen equivalent change. Look at Cuba, more doctors per capita than any other country in the world. Look at China’s infant mortality decline from 1950. Second, capitalism has existed for a long time. Look at an era like late 19th century gilded age America. Huge wealth surpluses but they largely went to the holders of capital, not society at large. Workers were violently repressed, living conditions were abhorrent. Social progress was made through worker action and democratic legislation, not through the allocation of capital and investment. Third, capitalism has also sought to dismantle these things. Private equity is buying up hospitals and significantly harming health outcomes for patients. Corporate lobbyists, especially for fossil fuel extraction companies, have been trying to kill environmental protections for years. Attributing capitalism with improvements to our society confuses cause and effect.