Why does it sound like you think “least worst” is synonymous with “good”? And you are also combining your opinion of the type of system with specific implementations of it. The two are related, but separate. For example, an autocrat can be a fantastic leader, and overall great for their country and everyone in it. That doesn’t mean an autocratic government is a good system in the general sense.
By what metric is capitalism the “least worst” system? Most of the people who defend capitalism have to sell their labor and own zero capital. The result is a two-tiered system where the obscenely wealthy exist right next to a vast majority who don’t have enough savings to survive a minor emergency. This is the situation in rich countries. The ongoing exploitation throughout so-called “third-world” capitalist countries also speaks against capitalism.
Moreover, if socialism is such a bad system, why did America fight tooth and nail to stop it? Diplomatic isolation, trade embargos, propaganda, political assassinations. It is because socialism actually threatens the profits of the wealthy. The west can’t exploit the land, labor, and resources of nations that place the workers in charge of their own workplaces. Maybe if the most powerful country in the history of the world wasn’t working against it the system could prove its worth.
All of the democratic socialist countries would like a word. Unfortunately, the CIA already killed them all.
Edit: To clarify, capitalism + democracy goes out of its way to fuck any other burgeoning system from getting its legs. So, I don’t think it’s fair to state “it’s the least worst”.
In other words, capitalism is in no way necessary for human civilization.
Of course it’s not necessary. The democracy +capitalism combo is just the least worst setup we figured out so far.
That’s what the state propagandists tell us, anyway.
The global south would disagree with you.
Its working out pretty well for the wealthy in colonialist countries though.
Why does it sound like you think “least worst” is synonymous with “good”? And you are also combining your opinion of the type of system with specific implementations of it. The two are related, but separate. For example, an autocrat can be a fantastic leader, and overall great for their country and everyone in it. That doesn’t mean an autocratic government is a good system in the general sense.
By what metric is capitalism the “least worst” system? Most of the people who defend capitalism have to sell their labor and own zero capital. The result is a two-tiered system where the obscenely wealthy exist right next to a vast majority who don’t have enough savings to survive a minor emergency. This is the situation in rich countries. The ongoing exploitation throughout so-called “third-world” capitalist countries also speaks against capitalism.
Moreover, if socialism is such a bad system, why did America fight tooth and nail to stop it? Diplomatic isolation, trade embargos, propaganda, political assassinations. It is because socialism actually threatens the profits of the wealthy. The west can’t exploit the land, labor, and resources of nations that place the workers in charge of their own workplaces. Maybe if the most powerful country in the history of the world wasn’t working against it the system could prove its worth.
All of the democratic socialist countries would like a word. Unfortunately, the CIA already killed them all.
Edit: To clarify, capitalism + democracy goes out of its way to fuck any other burgeoning system from getting its legs. So, I don’t think it’s fair to state “it’s the least worst”.