Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[Travis B.]

However, you're still right in saying the government and corporations were better at cooperating to make things suck less.

My theory is that it's due to the Soviet Bloc. When the bad guys next door promise universal prosperity, you kind of have to do the same -- and deliver, because you don't know if they're bluffing or not. A few examples:
a) The Soviets were in part influential in decolonization or the Civil Rights movement -- they never stopped rubbing the West's nose in its racism.
b) General prosperity in the post-war US had links to the Cold War. When Soviets and American leaders were competing to see who had the biggest kitchen at the World Fair, some of the bragging had to be implemented somehow.
c) In France we got a lot of nice things for the very simple reason that the Communists were right there and ready to take over. De Gaulle was a reactionary general with links to both paramilitary groups and the mob, but he was smart enough to realize we were one recession away from a communist takeover.
d) It's long been noted that West Germany was very prosperous and had, overall, a very reasonable business class. But these guys had lived through a totalitarian takeover, and the alternative to being very reasonable was right next door in East Germany.

Now countries can be led by A) Reactionary plutocrats (Europe, the US) B) Outright fascists as in China or Russia... There's not much of an incentive from group A to do better, eh?

The thing is that all this resulted in numerous dictatorships and civil wars along with things such as Gladio which greatly subsided overall with the end of the Cold War (even with new wars that arose such as the Yugoslav Wars) - the world became substantially more peaceful and democratic and not just because of the fall of the Eastern Bloc but also due to the rescinding of Western support for numerous dictatorships and sides in civil wars.

[Ares Land]

Yeah, I mean, I feel no nostalgia for the Cold War or the Soviets really. I do think standards of living improved in the developped First World as a result of the Cold War.

[zompist]

My theory is that it's due to the Soviet Bloc. When the bad guys next door promise universal prosperity, you kind of have to do the same -- and deliver, because you don't know if they're bluffing or not.

I agree, though I'd also add that the Great Depression delegitimized laissez-faire capitalism, so a strong government and well-managed business were possible for several key decades.

Travis's point is also good. The world has grown so much worse in the First World that people think the world sucks in general. But things are way better in the Third World: not only far less dictatorship and war, but far less starvation.

[Raphael]

Belated response to one small point:

Now countries can be led by A) Reactionary plutocrats (Europe, the US) B) Outright fascists as in China or Russia... There's not much of an incentive from group A to do better, eh?

Given how many people are so fed up with the Western establishment that they're willing to overlook the horrible aspects of any force that's at odds with the Western establishment, I'd say the Western establishment should have a strong incentive to do better... but unfortunately the Western establishment doesn't seem to think so, or doesn't seem to think that they could theoretically do better.

[hwhatting]

Now countries can be led by A) Reactionary plutocrats (Europe, the US) B) Outright fascists as in China or Russia... There's not much of an incentive from group A to do better, eh?

Given how many people are so fed up with the Western establishment that they're willing to overlook the horrible aspects of any force that's at odds with the Western establishment, I'd say the Western establishment should have a strong incentive to do better... but unfortunately the Western establishment doesn't seem to think so, or doesn't seem to think that they could theoretically do better.

Honestly, that's too despondent for my taste. I certainly am not as optimistic about the direction things are going as I was 30 years ago, but progress is still happening on many fronts, including climate change and social changes. It's just that there are pushbacks and pendulum swings, which always happen, and progress is slower than we like, and in the area of fighting climate change too slow to avoid major damage.

[MacAnDàil]

Because climate change is not caused by "capitalism", eliminating capitalism would not solve it. Climate change is caused by carbon emissions; so it can only be stopped by greatly reducing emissions. For the US, that means re-orienting the entire economy away from gas-wasting cars. For China it means not ramping up coal burning. For everyone it means a serious switch to renewable energy; this is far more doable than it used to be, but it probably still requires a lot of R&D.

You are right but I really think a switch to less energy use is also necessary. After all, the climate crisis is only one of the current (but unterrrelated) ecological crises. A reduction in energy use (and space use) would help prevent biodiversity loss, for example. R&D helps, sure, but if, with the greater proecological possiblities increase, but people would stay with ecowasting mentalities, it's not going to work. A change in ecomentalities would also help a great deal.