What would be the alternative? Socialism and thus the standstill of further development? It would have to be extremely state-regulated capitalism. But above all taxes! So on the rich. Democracies would have to be able to protect their own form of government… but they didn’t think about it when they were founded because everyone was happy about the positive outcome. So that our democracies are attacked from within. Above all, America needed to regulate tech companies more. Tax havens should be prevented, etc. Capitalism itself promotes further development. It just needs to be protected from abuse. Private individuals should never have too much money and therefore automatically have power.
Comment on Full Circle
demizerone@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Until we undo capitalism, we are going to have these 80 year cycles
IceFoxX@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Why would socialist halt development?
IceFoxX@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
If the state controls everything and resources etc. are distributed fairly, there is no competition.
“Where capitalism promotes efficiency, socialism focuses on equality and solidarity, a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor and the creation and maintenance of a level playing field”
Equality excludes the whole thing from the outset. It would ultimately end in injustice.
That’s why it would have to be ( now it’s getting funny ) socialist capitalism.
kaaskop@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Please note that there is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. You seem to be describing communism. Within a socialistic system there is still the concept of rich and poor and there is still the ability to create a better life through the effort of development. This specifically is the key distinction between socialism and capitalism.
So what you’re calling “socialist capitalism” turns out (funnily enough) to be just socialism which is in turn a capitalistic communism. :)
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I mean, the cycle started with the implementation of capitalism. Italy was functionally feudalistic (particularly in the southern territories) until the mid-19th century, with state power relegated to a hodgepodge of principalities. It’s only really been a unified country since 1870 and lagged on industrialization until the Cold War Era, when the US Marshall Plan made it an industrial and shipping beachhead for NATO-bloc manufacturing and trade (as well as a military base to strike out at North Africa and the Middle East).
The waves of Italian immigrants weren’t fleeing capitalism. They were fleeing the two World Wars and the industrial collapse of Europe. Americans, by contrast, won’t experience the same immediate socio-economic pressures to leave. So I suspect a lot of the reverse-migration we’ll see to Italy will be coming from an American middle class seeking to retire into a post-industrial retirement playground rather than an Italian underclass seeking gainful employment and safety from chronic civil wars and invasions.