Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an "uncorrupt government" is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it's remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I've pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
Markets don't "create wealth". People's work creates wealth. Banks don't create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.
Regulation isn't only desired, it's crucial for any market economy to work, lest they devolve into corrupt, abusive monopolies and oligopolies. Granted, bad regulation can be equally abusive and real cases are plentiful.
Just as important as regulation is taxing who has more money, because generating wealth won't automagically distribute it in any ideal manner. The worst problem nowadays is just how easy it is for rich assholes to legally evade taxes no matter which country they're from.
Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to what it's good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic "food stamps" system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury "fun bucks" that you don't lose out on if you don't have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I've been mulling over, I'm sure there's a million holes in it.
I agree! Let me know when you find an uncorrupt government or uncorrupt corporation.
Market != Capitalism. You can have a free market without capitalism, and capitalism without a free market.
The hexbears will attack me for saying that a regulated free market is good and a planned economy is bad. The others will attack me for saying that capitalism is bad and that we should have market socialism instead. But if we can't have that, a capitalist free market has proven much less bad than any planned economy, as long as it's regulated enough that it stays free.
There are hardcore liberals around here too. That's what you get when there isn't an algorithm to promote fascists.
The statement in the image is just loaded with terminology that comes with a lot of baggae. It's no surprise people tear into it. Can't speak to whether that makes them leftist or just poly sci students.
"Uncorrupt" misunderstands the nature of corruption. How do you envision resolving the interests of the forces that give validity to said government while still keeping a capitalist structure?
"Generate wealth" presupposes a specific kind of wealth created by the government and given validity by the capitalist structure. You win at the rules of the game you made up. "Middle class" has a similar problem. "Prosperity" to a nation starving under the global capitalist regime might look quite different. Why use one benchmark over the other? Because of the game you want to choose.
Boot-flavored capitalist Kool-Aid must be so refreshing during such a torrid summer
I believe you are probably right. the problem is that capitalists only focus is profit. so if their profit is limited by this hypothetical non-corrupt government they will try their absolute best to make sure they get their way in the government, and since they have a lot of money they also have the power to do that.
also the ideology of endless growth for the sake of growth (how capitalism works) is literally impossible on a planet with limited recourses
I'm lower-left quadrant but always cop a fair amount of shit from others on 'the left' (nebulous term though it is) for my feelings on capitalism. The people I speak to have never seen anything but corruption, and have a combo of zero faith and utter hatred for it.
My personal feelings are that with strong, enforced checks & balances, capitalism can be combined with socialist policies to create a fantastic standard of living (see Norway), without it becoming cancerous. Unfortunately most of our western political systems (and capitalism is strongly influenced by political systems) seem to be run on a wink and a nudge, an assumed sense of 'fair play' which we all know has been shown to be worthless in recent years.
Strong unions; an educated populace; politicians who actually give a shit; this is what we need. But, capitalism has an absolute stranglehold on the populace of most western countries via print / tv media. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse and the hens are getting shit on.
uncorrupt government
I think you meant "free real estate for the CIA and their a puppet dictators".
It's what happens every time another country doesn't want to sell their natural resources for pennies.
If money can make money that feedback loop will always break the system
All great social media does. The secret is that reality favors the progressive left
That's why I am here tbh
I'm not even sure what a government would look like in order to allow capitalism to function without corruption and exploitation. The regulations needed would be so overbearing that the markers surely would not thrive. Our entire society is based around the idea of abusing what is essentially slave labor to live far beyond our means. Without massive corruption, the US would just be another unremarkable country struggling to stay afloat.
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won't be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can't be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
That's an extremely narrow view point I'd say. In my country the government promotes the growth of existing big corporations so that there can be more jobs and infrastructure development - but this has in the end lead to a widening of gap and has essentially only made the rich even richer.
I genuinely believe promoting start ups is better for the middle class than big corporations, as usually startups pay a crazy amount of money if you ask for it compared to what a big rich corpo would give you (ironically).
I mean, it's hard to argue against that, because there is evidence that it works in Europe. Might need less corrupt governments in some places tho
I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.
There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no "best one" and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.
One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.
The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.
Left are the goodies
Right are the baddies.
Simples.
Reality has a leftist bias.
The video below offers a nice exploration on left v right in terms of the conditions in a nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I think, personally and without solid justification, that our generation is a sacrificial one. If we accept our lives as being imperfect, but aim to reduce the imperfection of those that come after, we're on the best path. Planting trees whose shade we'll never sit in, with the caveat we're also helping people see that the shade is more valuable than the lumber, and that the world always needs more of both.
Really depends on what you mean by market. Like a market has existed since humans have and probably will until post-scarcity. The market we have now with arcane rules that all end up enriching people with more money than any one human will ever need is something that has been in the making since industrialization. That market is pretty much at a point where salvaging it is not really possible even if there was any attempt made to do so. Control of how that market works seems to be at the hands of bad actors who just want to squeeze as much wealth out of it as they can, screwing over anyone else.
Like for example the power companies in my country stopped producing power on their own and bought power from neighboring countries just to sell it to locals at a higher rate. Basically just acting as middle men without providing anything of worth. That drove the price of power to hit 300% more than the year prior. The only reason they stopped was because our government started their own power plan with locally produced power forcing those companies to compete with it but the damage was done and power prices never went back to normal like they never do when companies inflate prices. A market regulated by people who only care about profit will never work.
Keep in mind, you are posting this to lemmy.ml, so I don't know what you expected... Maybe something like this would be better recieved on lemmy.world or on your account's instance.
Uncorrupt government. Lmao
Half?
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'bias'
The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they're not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren't extreme enough for you is silly.
I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren't extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.
Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It's not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.
Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left
And why is that a bad thing, I'd rather not support the side of politics that support bigotry and the exploit of humanity so the rich few can live in luxury
Good
This meme is based on an impossible assumption, maybe that's the joke. But I ain't certain.
The problem there is the same as that of idealised communism, you're relying on humans to do what they typically don't do. Humans will take for themselves at the cost of communities if they feel they can get away with it, including the ones in government.
The SEC ??
Who could ever want anything else?
sami'>\loda\
sami">\alert(document.cookie)\
sami">\loda\
except of course no government can regulate a Freed market.
If we truly Freed the market of government controls the workers could ownership of the fruits of their labor and the laws of supply and demand would regulate the market naturally
That's just what happens when you actually ban pedo-nazis and racists instead of passively protect them like reddit does.
It will be a while before weird gringo ideologies become less prevalent.
the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It's not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won't be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt's job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it's essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
In This Thread: politically illiterate takes
You are all just closeted leftists if you understood a bit more political theory. Go out and be the non-annoying, non-smug leftist that you dream of.
Implying the other half agrees with you, right?
Sounds about like every other wedge issue we're divided (lol auto correct decided that should be"focused"and 8 don't know that I disagree) with.
