Practicality for one. How do you change the world economy when they couldn’t even get together to manage a respiratory disease by wearing masks and isolating for 2 to 3 weeks.
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism as a concept. It’s how it’s abuses. Regulation and rules to circumbet that can help.
Communism doesn’t work. China shows some totalitarianism works, but I don’t want to lose personal freedoms for the greater good.
What system would you suggest would address capitalisms faults yet has a chance to actually happen?
Practicality for one. How do you change the world economy when they couldn’t even get together to manage a respiratory disease by wearing masks and isolating for 2 to 3 weeks.
You could say the same about UBI. Proper implementation requires wealthy to give up their wealth. Do you see that practically happening?
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism as a concept. It’s how it’s abuses. Regulation and rules to circumbet that can help.
Except that the system inherently causes capital accumulation and rewards abusive behavior. The kind of rules and regulations you’re thinking of work against capitalism and the wealthy are allowed to circumvent those rules anyway (see how they avoid paying tax).
Communism doesn’t work. China shows some totalitarianism works, but I don’t want to lose personal freedoms for the greater good.
I’m not going to get into the details of what communism actually is supposed to be or how the USSR or China are not necessarily the way to communism. I’m just going to point out that socialism does not have to go the way of USSR or China.
What system would you suggest would address capitalisms faults yet has a chance to actually happen?
Socialism. Not the Leninist way but the Marxist way. Marx described socialism as a process, a series of steps necessary to dismantle capitalism and establish communism. He didn’t go into details on what those steps are or how many steps they may or may not be. So to be true to Marx I’m not saying “let’s completely throw capitalism in the bin and go into planned economy” but rather lets treat it as a process. We don’t need to establish communism, but lets take step by step towards a better future.
And as such I think the smallest first step, which in many ways is already a huge step, is changing the ownership of companies. Everyone working at the company is also the owner of the company and gets a say in how the company operates. That change alone would improve working conditions and arguably have companies do less shady shit. But realistically I don’t see it happening any more than I see UBI happening in the way that you imagine.
UBI can be changed gradually. It loses some of it’s efficacy in distribution but it doesn’t need to be revolution. It can be evolution. It also does not mean a high risk of capital flight for the first movers. This means countries or areas can do it incrementally, one at a time, rather than a complete global shift at once. The wealthy won’t want to give up their wealth, that’s a given. That is the case for any change we plan for better distribution, so it’s not really an argument against or for any change.
Yes, it favours capital accumulation and rewards poor behavior. So what I have suggested adding is a method that leads to better wealth distribution and to disincentivise the negative externalities. Correct the flaws, so to speak. There is no perfect system that cannot be exploited. It’s a case of risk mitigation not elimination.
Socialism may stop companies doing shady shit, but will it make them.less competitive on the world stage? Remember, they are competing with non socialist countries initially. As you mention, it would be a means of transition. Yet, every country that has tried communism has failed, often with devastating consequences for the people there. Our world and nation state economies are much more complex and intertwined than before, yet efficient use of resources was not possible then. The problem is not the theory, it is people. Power corrupts.
I don’t have a problem with changing the ownership structure. However, can you point to any cooperative that was able to scale in the way that modern companies in a capitalist system do? Cooperatives exist and on a local scale can be beneficial. On a macro scale, they are less efficient and society as a whole is worse off for that loss of efficiency. That is the problem. Capitalism priorities profits, which require growth. The key is not to ensure broader ownership, but rather broader distribution of the wealth and profits created by that. We already have examples of that with share disbursement as a reward. Perhaps we could look at that being a regulated norm, in tandem with pensions payments etc.
@hitmyspot@GoodEye8@solarpunk “Yet, every country that has tried communism has failed, often with devastating consequences for the people there.” This is American government propaganda, that shows a lack of investigation into the topic.
As people seem to frequently need to be reminded, words have definitions, “socialism” is workers/democratic control of the means of production. It is tough to call a system lacking democratic control of the economy “communism”. Still, I will play this game using the systems commonly defined as “communist” or “socialist”
How come ending “communism” in Russia knocked 10 years off male life expectancy?
Cuba has a per capita income around 1/7th the US, yet it has a life expectancy equal to the US, all while being embargoed for 60 years. That doesn’t sound like a failure. All while still not being “Socialist”, merely not letting rich people control the economy is enough to get these amazing results.
The Norwegian government owns 60% of the economy, 90% if private housing is excluded. They are richer per capita and have longer life expectancies than Americans.
The greater the social ownership of an economy the better the outcomes on metrics that actually matter; life expectancy, infant mortality, education, housing, free time. Frankly, it is common sense.
@hitmyspot@GoodEye8@solarpunk
And another thing 😀
How can you call the USSR a totalitarian state because of the Gulags and Stalin Purges but not say the same thing about the US? We lock up an almost identical share of our population as Russia did at the height of the gulags.
USA=2.4% at its last peak in 2008
Russia=2.5% at its peak in 1950
How about the killings done for economic or state building purposes by those uniquely evil “communists”? I won’t even bother gathering the statistics of Stalin’s Purges vs US genocide of native peoples. At least, Stalin stopped the purges, the US continues to immiserate the native populations and won’t live up to legally binding treaty obligations, see Arizona et al. vs Navajo Nation et al.
At the end of the day, the US and the USSR were/are colonial empires run by oligarchies. The results are going to be substantially similar. Yet the USSR was within spitting distance of US life expectancy on half the GDP per capita for most of the 20th century, until capitalism was introduced. A small amount of egalitarianism goes a long way.
Practicality for one. How do you change the world economy when they couldn’t even get together to manage a respiratory disease by wearing masks and isolating for 2 to 3 weeks.
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism as a concept. It’s how it’s abuses. Regulation and rules to circumbet that can help.
Communism doesn’t work. China shows some totalitarianism works, but I don’t want to lose personal freedoms for the greater good.
What system would you suggest would address capitalisms faults yet has a chance to actually happen?
You could say the same about UBI. Proper implementation requires wealthy to give up their wealth. Do you see that practically happening?
Except that the system inherently causes capital accumulation and rewards abusive behavior. The kind of rules and regulations you’re thinking of work against capitalism and the wealthy are allowed to circumvent those rules anyway (see how they avoid paying tax).
I’m not going to get into the details of what communism actually is supposed to be or how the USSR or China are not necessarily the way to communism. I’m just going to point out that socialism does not have to go the way of USSR or China.
Socialism. Not the Leninist way but the Marxist way. Marx described socialism as a process, a series of steps necessary to dismantle capitalism and establish communism. He didn’t go into details on what those steps are or how many steps they may or may not be. So to be true to Marx I’m not saying “let’s completely throw capitalism in the bin and go into planned economy” but rather lets treat it as a process. We don’t need to establish communism, but lets take step by step towards a better future.
And as such I think the smallest first step, which in many ways is already a huge step, is changing the ownership of companies. Everyone working at the company is also the owner of the company and gets a say in how the company operates. That change alone would improve working conditions and arguably have companies do less shady shit. But realistically I don’t see it happening any more than I see UBI happening in the way that you imagine.
UBI can be changed gradually. It loses some of it’s efficacy in distribution but it doesn’t need to be revolution. It can be evolution. It also does not mean a high risk of capital flight for the first movers. This means countries or areas can do it incrementally, one at a time, rather than a complete global shift at once. The wealthy won’t want to give up their wealth, that’s a given. That is the case for any change we plan for better distribution, so it’s not really an argument against or for any change.
Yes, it favours capital accumulation and rewards poor behavior. So what I have suggested adding is a method that leads to better wealth distribution and to disincentivise the negative externalities. Correct the flaws, so to speak. There is no perfect system that cannot be exploited. It’s a case of risk mitigation not elimination.
Socialism may stop companies doing shady shit, but will it make them.less competitive on the world stage? Remember, they are competing with non socialist countries initially. As you mention, it would be a means of transition. Yet, every country that has tried communism has failed, often with devastating consequences for the people there. Our world and nation state economies are much more complex and intertwined than before, yet efficient use of resources was not possible then. The problem is not the theory, it is people. Power corrupts.
I don’t have a problem with changing the ownership structure. However, can you point to any cooperative that was able to scale in the way that modern companies in a capitalist system do? Cooperatives exist and on a local scale can be beneficial. On a macro scale, they are less efficient and society as a whole is worse off for that loss of efficiency. That is the problem. Capitalism priorities profits, which require growth. The key is not to ensure broader ownership, but rather broader distribution of the wealth and profits created by that. We already have examples of that with share disbursement as a reward. Perhaps we could look at that being a regulated norm, in tandem with pensions payments etc.
@hitmyspot @GoodEye8 @solarpunk “Yet, every country that has tried communism has failed, often with devastating consequences for the people there.” This is American government propaganda, that shows a lack of investigation into the topic.
As people seem to frequently need to be reminded, words have definitions, “socialism” is workers/democratic control of the means of production. It is tough to call a system lacking democratic control of the economy “communism”. Still, I will play this game using the systems commonly defined as “communist” or “socialist”
How come ending “communism” in Russia knocked 10 years off male life expectancy?
Cuba has a per capita income around 1/7th the US, yet it has a life expectancy equal to the US, all while being embargoed for 60 years. That doesn’t sound like a failure. All while still not being “Socialist”, merely not letting rich people control the economy is enough to get these amazing results.
The Norwegian government owns 60% of the economy, 90% if private housing is excluded. They are richer per capita and have longer life expectancies than Americans.
The greater the social ownership of an economy the better the outcomes on metrics that actually matter; life expectancy, infant mortality, education, housing, free time. Frankly, it is common sense.
@hitmyspot @GoodEye8 @solarpunk
And another thing 😀
How can you call the USSR a totalitarian state because of the Gulags and Stalin Purges but not say the same thing about the US? We lock up an almost identical share of our population as Russia did at the height of the gulags.
USA=2.4% at its last peak in 2008
Russia=2.5% at its peak in 1950
How about the killings done for economic or state building purposes by those uniquely evil “communists”? I won’t even bother gathering the statistics of Stalin’s Purges vs US genocide of native peoples. At least, Stalin stopped the purges, the US continues to immiserate the native populations and won’t live up to legally binding treaty obligations, see Arizona et al. vs Navajo Nation et al.
At the end of the day, the US and the USSR were/are colonial empires run by oligarchies. The results are going to be substantially similar. Yet the USSR was within spitting distance of US life expectancy on half the GDP per capita for most of the 20th century, until capitalism was introduced. A small amount of egalitarianism goes a long way.
@hitmyspot @GoodEye8 @solarpunk UBI is nothing more than welfare, meaning the rich give it and the rich can take it away. Ownership is the welfare we give ourselves. Be a cool kid and check out social wealth funds, all the benefits of UBI none of class warfare. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/project/tackling-inequality-through-the-social-ownership-of-capital/