When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror
When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror
You're viewing a single thread.
Can you point me to a real first world developed country not run by a dictator that doesn't have capitalism? I need a reference to see that the alternative is better. Genuinely asking.
not run by a dictator
The catch here is that in the west, we label anyone anti-capitalist a dictator. You can be the very definition of dictatorial, but if you align with western interests, you're just a "president" or a "leader" or something. But start nationalizing your oil industry and 🚨 dictator! dictator! 🚨
So yeah, within the bounds of the narrative that capitalism is the only way, you'll find that capitalism is the only way, unsurprisingly. But the fact that this narrative is baked into us from childhood doesn't necessarily mean that it's aligned with reality.
At anything bigger than city scale, it's pretty much impossible to implement any "real" alternative without fuckloads of work - we're talking 10+ years. Making a commune on a farm with ~15-ish people is easy (lots of hard work, but doable, there are historical examples of success), but even that group has to participate with the capitalist mother state whenever they need to get stuff they can't produce themselves. If the commune grows too much, it becomes impossible to keep things running smoothly because, well, there's just too many people involved now.
This is why Libertarianism and Ayn Rand followers are so dumb. Galt's Gulch only works because its like, a hundred or so people. The entire concept breaks at any level of scale. Not every person can provide a genius world changing idea to cash in on if only that pesky government would stay out of the way.
They're dumber because they effectively defend a type of feudalism where they're on top and "merit" is the explanation for the hierarchy, all while complaining that everything bad is the state's fault
No, because we live in a global society where if you don't participate in global trade (especially with the USA in the past couple hundred years), your country will fail.
The USA has played a massive part in making communist experiments fail, most notibly the USSR.
The closest thing that the western world has is the nordic countries' social democracy, which is still capitalist by nature. They only implemented it, though due to communism being literally right around the corner (USSR)
I mean, the Nordic Countries are kind of an example of how you can make an economy work that that isn't purely "endless growth capitalism" and isn't "everyone is poor and miserable Communism."
There can be things in between.
I don’t think you can get to communism where there’s a relatively small group in power tasked with dividing the means of production. That power will be abused like oligarchs do now.
Yeah, I agree with that. Mass centralization is bad regardless of the situation IMO. We need collaboration instead.
I'm personally a fan of Prof Wolff's idea to force all corporations to surrender ownership to their workers, converting them into worker-owned coops. This would largely mitigate the ability for extreme wealth concentration to happen to begin with, especially if combined with other wealth-limiting regulations.
What would be the motivation then to even start a company/corporation if every time it happens, it is seized and given away?
As long as you still work at it, you are one of the workers.
The only forcing going on here would be forcing you to consider all the workers' voices, not just yours.
If you stop working at the company, then you'd have to give up any control over it. Which is frankly entirely reasonable.
Really good question!
We look at the motivations for starting businesses through a modern-day capitalist lens, but the motivations would change under a different economic system (not entirely, though, depending on the economic system).
Making money is still the goal here for most people, but this would be combined with a strong social welfare program that makes all basic human needs (housing, food, utilities, internet, etc.) available to everyone, so fear of failure is vastly reduced.
As for the motivation to create a startup, there could be a few different cases, such as only having large businesses (determined by either employee count or total annual profit or revenue) be impacted by that regulation that forces all businesses to be worker-owned.
Another reason could simply be wanting to create something new for the betterment of humanity. If all basic human needs are met, then the profit motive, while not going away entirely, is greatly reduced, as the need for survival is already met, so more experimentation with different ideas can happen with the fear of failure being greatly reduced, as it would be simple to restart from scratch with a strong safety net. There could still be a profit motive here, but it would be secondary to the actual idea.
You're an artist, but you're not popular and you don't make money off your work? Cool, you can do that full time.
You're wanting to open a (non-chain/franchised) corner store with 5 well-paid employees? Go for it.
Your business expanded to over 50 employees, or makes more than $10 million in annual profit (completely arbitrary numbers here)? Now your business gets equally split up amongst the workers. The stock market in this situation would no longer exist, where external parties can both gamble on a company and influence the direction of that company, usually in favor of short term gain. When employees own the business, they tend to favor long term sustainability and stability, as that is what most people are seeking for themselves.
There should also be a hard cap on wealth, as nobody could ever possibly need more than $50 million for their entire life (again, arbitrary number). If wealth had a hard cap, that would also reduce incentive to constantly try to seize more power in any field (wouldn't limit it entirely, but I don't think anything can).
This will not eliminate the profit motive, as most people aren't going to be satisfied with just the bare minimum for survival, but the lack of profit/business failure will not lead to homelessness/starvation/etc.
The USSR didn't fail because of the USA....the fuck is with you tankies.
I'm sure fighting a global proxy war for most of a century has absolutely nothing to do with the (state) failure of the USSR.
Now, excuse me, I have to go to the ER because of all the compounded brain damage it takes to both think that and say anyone that believes otherwise is a tankie.
Democratic socialism is not unheard of...
It's not unheard of, but it's incredibly ill-defined and means a million different things to a million different people. Socialists are, as a rule, democratic, so "Democratic Socialism" is similar to stating "Anti-Capitalist Socialism."
As a consequence, Democratic Socialism seems to mean anything from the Social Democracies in the Nordic Countries to Socialism but with a democracy structured like the US or Western Europe, as opposed to Soviets or Worker Councils or Trade Unions.
Democratic socialism without the support of capitalism is truly and completely unheard of.
Capitalism is a tool, use it and beat it back into submission when it fails.
But don't worship it. Make it work for the nation, don't make the nation exist for the sake of the economy. This is what we do in America, and it's fucking wrong.
There is more than one alternative and some of them involve having capitalism...